BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.246 of 2015

Date of Instt. 04.06.2015

Date of Decision :02.06.2016

Sudhir Kumar son of Late Vaid Hand Raj R/o 84, Chandan Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Trackon India Pvt Ltd, through its Authorized Representative, A-64, Naraina Ind.Area, Phase-I, Near PVR, Naraina, New Delhi-110028.

2. Trackon India Pvt Ltd., through its Authorized Representative, SCO-108, Sector-47-C, Chandigarh.

3. Trackon India Pvt Ltd., C/o Poonam Courier situated at Dilkhuusha Market, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Puneet Sareen Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Kuljesh Mittal Adv., counsel for the OPs.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties(herein called as OPs) on the averments that complainant sent a bank draft dated 27.3.2015 of Rs.48,000/- bearing No.634931 drawn on Canara Bank, Jalandhar to Vivek Sood, R/o New Delhi as payment of rent to said Vivek Sood through OP No.3 on 8.4.2015 vide receipt No.442184005. The OP assured that the said envelope containing bank draft shall be delivered to said Vivek Sood at New Delhi within period of 2 to 3 days but the OP did not deliver the said envelope containing aforesaid bank draft to said Vivek Sood at New Delhi nor returned the same to the complainant. The complainant checked the status of the said courier from OPs official website and the same has not been delivered so far to the consignee Vivek Sood. The complainant approached the OP so many times to enquire about the said courier but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice dated 9.5.2015 upon the OPs through registered post but OP neither delivered the said envelope containing aforesaid draft to the consignee nor returned to the complainant. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the OPs to return the original draft. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written reply pleading that complainant booked courier on 8.4.2015 from Jalandhar to New Delhi in an ordinary way. The complainant did not make declaration/disclosure at the time of booking of consignment regarding the contents of the same. So, consignment was booked in the ordinary way. OPs submitted that the said courier lost in transit and the OPs got recorded DDR dated 14.5.2015 and the complainant was told in this regard. OPs submitted that as the circumstances were beyond the control of the OPs because the courier has been lost during transit and the same could not be delivered to the consignee at New Delhi.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and evidence of the complainant was closed by order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed evidence.

5. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

6 From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant sent a bank draft dated 27.3.2015 of Rs.48,000/- bearing No.634931 Ex.C1 drawn on Canara Bank Jalandhar to Vivek Sood, R/o New Delhi as payment of rent to said Vivek Sood through OP No.3 on 8.4.2015 vide receipt No.442184005 Ex.C3. The OP assured that the said envelope containing bank draft shall be delivered to said Vivek Sood at New Delhi within a period of 2 to 3 days but the OP did not deliver the said envelope containing aforesaid bank draft to said Vivek Sood at New Delhi nor returned the same to the complainant. The complainant checked the status of the said courier from OPs official website and the same has not been delivered so far to the consignee Vivek Sood. The complainant approached the OPs so many times to enquire about the said courier but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice dated 9.5.2015 Ex.C2 upon the OPs through registered post but OP neither delivered the said envelope containing aforesaid bank draft to the consignee nor returned to the complainant. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

7. Whereas the case of the OPs is that complainant booked courier on 8.4.2015 from Jalandhar to New Delhi in ordinary way. The complainant did not make declaration/disclosure at the time of booking of consignment regarding the contents of the same. So, consignment was booked in an ordinary way. The OP issued receipt Ex.C3 in this regard. OPs submitted that the said courier lost in transit and the OPs got recorded DDR dated 14.5.2015 Ex.OP2 and the complainant was told in this regard. Learned counsel for the OPs submitted that as the circumstances were beyond the control of the OPs because the courier has been lost during transit and the same could not be delivered to the consignee at New Delhi. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that complainant booked courier/consignment on 8.4.2015 from Jalandhar to New Delhi for delivery to Vivek Sood son of Santosh Sood R/o 205, Sector-A, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi as per envelope Ex.C4, through OP No.3 vide receipt Ex.C3. The complainant submitted that the said courier was containing bank draft of Rs.48,000/- as payment of rent to said Vivek Sood but the OPs failed to deliver the said courier to the consignee at New Delhi nor they explained to the complainant, then complainant had to serve a legal notice dated 9.5.2015 Ex.C2 upon the OP and thereafter the OP got recorded DDR dated 14.5.2015 Ex.OP2 regarding the loss of the said courier. The said courier lost in transit when it was in the custody of OP. So, the OPs were negligent in handling/carrying the said courier to the destination and failed to perform their duties properly. Thereby, the said courier lost in the transit due to lapse on the part of the OPs. No doubt, the complainant has not alleged that he suffered loss of the amount of bank draft nor he produced any evidence in this regard. Rather the said draft, copy of which is Ex.C1, was account payee draft in the name of Vivek Sood. As such, the same can not be misused by any other person. However, certainly the OPs are in deficiency of service qua the complainant for not delivering the consignment to the consignee within an appropriate time as is accepted from a prudent courier.

9. Resultantly, we partly allow this complaint with cost and the OPs are directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The OPs are also directed to pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

02.06.2016 Member President