Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Ms. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President
Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member
For the Complainant : Sh. Puneet Garg/ Sh. Maninder Pal Singh, counsel for the complainant
For the Opposite parties : Sh. Ish Kumar, counsel for opposite parties.
O R D E R
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as 'Act'). In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 24-10-2010, he sent some documents including photocopy of Enrollment Card, Examination Form duly filled in by the complainant alongwith one Bank draft of Rs. 1300/- being the fees of the examination in favour of Bar Council of India, New Delhi, payable at New Delhi vide courier receipt No. 213293666 of opposite party No. 2. The opposite party No. 2 after receiving the charges, assured the complainant that courier would be delivered to the addressee on very next working day. The complainant inquired from Bar Council of India, New Delhi and came to know that no such courier was delivered to them. The complainant approached opposite party No. 2, but no satisfactory reply was given to him. The opposite parties neither delivered the said courier to Bar Council of India nor returned the same to the complainant. The complainant alleged that due to the above said act of the opposite parties, the complainant had been deprived from appearing in the examination/test which was to be conducted by the Bar Council of India, New Delhi. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 12-02-2011 upon the opposite parties calling upon them to admit lawful claim of the complainant and to return the aforesaid envelop containing his original documents and bank draft of Rs. 1300/- but the opposite parties did not reply to the said notice rather two days back, they have refused to accede to the request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint has been filed by the complainant.
The opposite parties filed their joint written reply and admitted that complainant had hired their services on the 24-10-2010 but they denied that envelop was containing Enrolment Card, Examination Form or demand draft of Rs. 1300/. The opposite parties have no knowledge about the contents of the envelop which was booked in the ordinary way, as they were not informed about its contents by the complainant at the time of booking. It has been pleaded that complainant was categorically told by the opposite parties on having seen the address written on the envelop which was meant for Bar Council of India because Government offices do not accept documents sent through courier, but he insisted on sending the same through the opposite parties on the ground that he would take it back if the same was not received by consignee. The consignee refused to accept the courier and accordingly, the opposite parties contacted the complainant but he refused to accept the same and threatened to sue in court. The opposite parties visited the premises of the complainant twice to return the envelop, but he refused to accept the consignment and hence, the opposite parties had no option left but to dispose of the same. The opposite parties have further pleaded that even assuming, though not admitting, the consignment has not been delivered or lost for any act of the opposite parties, the complainant cannot claim any damages as per his whims and wishes and for this, they have relied upon catena of judgements. It has been stated that the opposite parties have mentioned on the front page of booking receipt that if not covered by special risk surcharges, claim value on this shipper shall in no circumstances exceed Rs. 2000/- for parcels and Rs. 100/- for packet of documents.
Parties have led evidence in support of their pleadings.
Arguments heard and written submissions submitted by the parties perused.
The complainant has sent some documents including photocopy of Enrollment Card, Examination Form duly filled in by the complainant alongwith one Bank draft of Rs. 1300/- being the fees of the examination in favour of Bar Council of India, New Delhi, payable at New Delhi vide courier receipt No. 213293666 of opposite party No. 2 which was not delivered to the addressee.
In para No. 1 of complaint, the complainant has stated that he sent some document including photocopy of Enrollment card, examination form and one bank draft of Rs. 1300/- whereas in para Nos. 5 & 6 of complaint, he has mentioned that the envelop was containing original documents. Similarly in para No. 1 of his affidavit Ex. C-1, the complainant has stated that he sent some documents including photocopy of documents whereas in para No. 5 and 6 of affidavit he has mentioned that envelop was containing original documents. Again in legal notice Ex. C-2 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties, it is mentioned in para No. 1 that “some documents including photocopy of Enrollment card, Examination Form duly filled in by my client alongwith one draft of Rs. 1300/-” wherein in para No. 6 of legal notice, it has been mentioned “... through this notice, I again request you to return the original envelop containing the documents mentioned above to my client”
Thus, the version of the complainant is contradictory in his own documents. If for arguments sake, it is believed that complainant had sent the original documents through the opposite parties, he has no where mentioned that he disclosed the contents/documents of the envelop to the opposite parties. Even the complainant has neither mentioned the number of draft nor produced photocopy of draft which he has allegedly sent through the courier of the opposite parties.
The complainant has produced on record a copy of courier receipt Ex. C-5 and did not produce the copy of backside of this receipt intentionally. During the arguments, the opposite parties have produced on record photocopy of backside of this receipt as “Annexure” '1' which contains Terms and Conditions. Condition No. 7 of Annexure “1” is reproduced hereunder :-
“7. No complaint/claim shall be entertained by the company/franchisee after the expiry of 30 days from the date booking of consignment”
Sh. Paramjit Singh, Booking Clerk-cum-Consignment delivery person of the opposite parties in para No. 3 of his affidavit Ex. R-3 has deposed :-
“.....the deponent visited the complainant with undelivered dak (docket)/consignment and informed him about the same and requested to take back the undelivered dak (docket)/consignment, but the complainant refused to accept the same and threatened to sue in the court. Even thereafter, the deponent visited the house of the complainant twice to return the consignment, but the complainant while refusing to accept the consignment misbehaved with the deponent and thereafter, the deponent got deposited the dak/consignment with Bathinda office.”
Thus, in view of the facts, circumstances and the evidence placed on file, this Forum is of the view that when after repeated visits to the complainant, he refused to accept the undelivered envelop, the opposite parties disposed of the same as the condition No. 7 mentioned above at the back of courier receipt clearly envisage that no claim shall be entertained by the company after expiry of 30 days. Moreover, the opposite parties have approached the complainant to return his envelop which was refused by him. This is sufficient to prove bonafide on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant with pre-determined mind has refused to accept the same. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record room.
Pronounced
08-07-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)
President
(Amarjeet Paul) Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
