DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 176 of 3.5.2016
Decided on: 14.9.2017
Deepak son of Sh.Rakesh Kumar c/o Shri Shree Sham resident of House No.152, Ward No.17, Garh Mohalla,Samana, District Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. A-64, Narina Industrial Area, Phase-1, New Delhi-110028 through its Managing Director.
2. Mahinder Pal, Agent of Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd.Near Post Office Samana, Samana, District Patiala.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Smt.Jaswinder Kaur,Adv. counsel for complainant.
Opposite parties ex-parte.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Complainant Mr.Deepak has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To deliver the courier with immediate effect or to pay Rs.5000/-the costs of articles contained in the courier
- To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment;
- To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses and
- To grant any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant availed the services of the OPs having sent articles containing Amla candy, Vodaphone postpaid SIM, Rs.2000/-cash and important documents to Ms.Shipra Gard d/o Balwinder Garg at Amritsar, through them vide receipt No.485494520 dated 13.2.2016.Till date the same was not delivered to the consignee. The complainant approached and requested to the OP for delivering the courier to the consignee but it put the matter off on one pretext or the other and ultimately stated that the courier has been lost and nothing could be done.Finding no alternative, he served a legal notice dated 26.2.2016 upon the OPs but they did not respond .The act and conduct of the OPs amounted to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and physical harassment to him. Hence this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the OPs failed to appear despite service and were accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
4. On being called to do so, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C5 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. From the perusal of the courier receipt No.485494520 dated 13.12.2016, Ex.C1, it is evident that the name of the complainant has not been found mentioned on it. Even the amount of courier charges has not been found mentioned on the said receipt. The column meant for number of pieces/weight/ courier charges/risk charges etc. were also left blank. The said receipt has neither been signed by any authorized person of the courier company nor the same bears the signature of the complainant. Thus, no reliance can be placed on this receipt, to arrive at a conclusion that the complainant had booked any parcel with the Ops. The complainant has also neither in the complaint nor in his affidavit disclosed as to what amount he has paid as consideration to the Ops for the booking of the parcel, as alleged by him. In this view of the matter, the complainant has failed to prove his case. Consequently, we dismiss the present case without any order as to costs. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED: 14.9.2017
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
