DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/164/2021

Date of Institution : 10.08.2021

Date of Decision : 04.03.2022

Hem Raj Kapil S/o Sh. Data Ram R/o Street No. 6-B, KC Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala. …Complainant

Versus

1. Trackon Couriers Private Limited through its Authorized Dealer Rajesh Kumar Proprietor Vishwa Karma Stationers, Near IDBI Bank, Sector-78, Landran Road, Sohana, District Mohali (Punjab) M. 98724-22267.

2. Trackon Couriers Private Limited through its Authorized Person A-64, Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110028. …Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Present: Sh. JK Kapil Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Kanwal Jit Singh Assistant General Manager for opposite parties. 

 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Hem Raj Kapil filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Trackon Couriers Private Limited, Sohana and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant had purchased one Motor Car bearing registration No. DL-4CAE-5993 from Nipun Bansal vide agreement dated 26.4.2021. On 12.7.2021 the complainant had sent required documents for NOC to his son Dr. Navroze Kapil at New Delhi. So that he may get the necessary formalities completed from the seller. At the time of booking opposite party No. 1 was told that this envelope contained important documents and it should be safely delivered to Dr. Navroze Kapil. He charged Rs. 80/- from the complainant vide receipt dated 12.7.2021. He assured that the courier will be delivered within 3 or 4 days at the maximum. The complainant further alleged that till date Dr. Navroze Kapil has not received the said courier nor it is returned to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that the address of Dr. Navroze Kapil is not complete. Thereafter, the complainant sent the other important documents to Dr. Navroze Kapil at the same address through Indian Post Office vide receipt dated 23.7.2021 which were delivered within 3 days on 26.7.2021. The non delivey of the courier amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to pay compensation for financial loss, harassment, mental agony of Rs. 2,00,000/-.  

2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of litigation expenses.  

3) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

3. The opposite party filed written reply taking preliminary objections on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. It is admitted that booking of consignment in question was done by the complainant at Mohali for Delhi and filed the present complaint before this Commission before which no cause of action.

4. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had booked a consignment with the opposite party on 12.7.2021 for Delhi. It is further submitted that the consignment of the complainant could not be delivered to the consignee as the address mentioned in the consignment was found to be inadequate. The complainant was called on his phone which was found not reachable. The opposite party No. 2 bring back the consignment to Mohali where the consignment was booked. The complainant told to collect the consignment from the office of opposite party No. 1 at Mohali but he has not come to the office of the opposite party No. 1 and the same is still lying in the office at Mohali. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and lastly they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

5. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, courier receipt Ex.C-2, postal receipt  Ex.C-3, copy of RC Ex.C-4, copy of E stamp Ex.C-5, copy of message of post office Ex.C-6, copy of envelope Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

6. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite parties  tendered in evidence affidavit of KS Narang Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.  

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the opposite parties.

8. It is admitted case of the complainant by the opposite parties that the complainant booked a consignment with the opposite party No. 1 on 12.7.2021 at Mohali for Delhi vide courier receipt Ex.C-2. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that the consignment of the complainant could not delivered to the consignee as the address mentioned in the consignment was not complete. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite parties are bound to deliver the consignment within time but the opposite parties neither delivered the same nor returned to the complainant. 

9. The opposite parties already produced the copy of the envelope on the file. Today, the opposite party No. 2 brought the original envelope which was booked by the complainant for sending the same through the opposite parties and this Commission has carefully perused the address mentioned on the envelope. Today the complainant also suffered a statement before this Commission that he has received the envelope in question and he is satisfied.  

10. The opposite party No. 2 argued that the address mentioned on the envelope was not complete but the learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant booked another consignment on the same address through Indian Post Office vide postal receipt dated 23.7.2021 Ex.C-3 which was delivered to the addressee on the same address. This fact was not denied by the opposite parties. The complainant has also produced the copy of the envelope which was posted through Indian Post Office Ex.C-7. From this copy of envelope Ex.C-7 and original envelope of courier which is produced by the opposite parties today in this Commission it is proved on the file that the address mentioned on both these envelopes is same. So, by not delivering the courier or returning the same to the complainant is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

11. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and  Rs. 2,200/- as litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with the above mentioned order of this Commission. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        4th Day of March 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member