Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Mrs.Reetu Jassal has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that  the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party for sending Rakhi to her brother to New Zealand vide their docket No.RP571972379In dated 21.7.2016, hence the complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party for sending the rakha on the pious festival of Raksha Bandhan which is considered a very important time of the year when brother sister share their love and affection for each other  and the sisters who are away from their brothers with every possible way try to send the thread of bond which is the symbol  of their affection towards each other and the said thread of bond is tied by the brother on the said day giving his choicest  blessings for his system, vide their receipt dated 21.7.2016 which was assured to be delivered in four days, the complainant sent the rakhi to his brother to Shubham, 1/7, Viewland Avenue, New Zealand. It has come to the utter shock of the complainant when after weeks time the complainant called her brother and came to know that said envelop containing rakhi did not reach the destination, the complainant approached the Opposite Party, but they put off the matter and assured that the envelop will be reached next day  but till the filing of the present complaint the same has not been delivered and neither been returned to the complainant, the complainant is daily visiting the Opposite Party and was put off on one  pretext or the other  and the festival of Raksha Bandhan passed off since long and brother sister love and affection which was to be exchanged through said thread of bond cannot be celebrated with such fanfare and zeal due to negligent and callous acts of the Opposite Party. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Party in not delivering the envelop containing the rakhi of the complainant sent to her brother is an act of deficiency in service, mal practices, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant for which the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to deliver the said envelop at its destination  or return back the same to the complainant.

b)      Opposite Party be directed to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

c)       Opposite Party be directed to pay the adequate cost of the litigation.

d)      Any other relief to which the complainant is found under the law, equity and justice be also allowed. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is legally not maintainable; that the present complaint is not maintainable as no notice under section 80 of CPC was served by the complainant; that the replying Opposite Party is nowhere at fault as alleged by the complainant in the present complaint. The registered article No.RP5719723791N was booked from Amritsar Kutchery Post office on 2.7.2016 at 1141 hours and said article was despatched to Amritsar Rail mail service in the bag No.RBP003994242 duly entered in registered list  at the serial No.34/47. As per the tracking details of the article on India Post website, the article has been despatched  from New Delhi for New Zealand on 23.7.2016 which was received by the concerned  authorities (New Zealand) on 28.7.2016. The article was meant for delivery to the addressee on 29.7.2016, but it could not be delivered as addressee was not available. The concerned authorities henceforth updated the status that article/ item being held and addressee being notified. It clearly means that the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as the Opposite Party has duly delivered the article to the destination country without any delay.  On merits, it is submitted that merely booking of the article through registered post does not tantamount the complainant to be alleged as consumer of the Opposite Party and hence, is not protected by the Consumer Protection Act.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Makhan Singh, Sr. Superintendent Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       The complainant has submitted her affidavit Ex.C1 in which she has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and submitted that the complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party for sending Rakhi to her brother to New Zealand vide their docket No.RP571972379IN dated 21.7.2016, hence the complainant is a consumer as provided under the Act and is competent to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant hired the services of the Opposite Party for sending the rakha on the pious festival of Raksha Bandhan which is considered a very important time of the year when brother sister share their love and affection for each other  and the sisters who are away from their brothers with every possible way try to send the thread of bond which is the symbol  of their affection towards each other and the said thread of bond is tied by the brother on the said day giving his choicest  blessings for his system, vide their receipt dated 21.7.2016 which was assured to be delivered in four days, the complainant sent the rakhi to his brother to Shubham, 1/7, Viewland Avenue, New Zealand. It has come to the utter shock of the complainant when after weeks time the complainant called her brother and came to know that said envelop containing rakhi did not reach the destination, the complainant approached the Opposite Party, but they put off the matter and assured that the envelop will be reached next day  but till the filing of the present complaint the same has not been delivered and neither been returned to the complainant, the complainant is daily visiting the Opposite Party and was put off on one  pretext or the other  and the festival of Raksha Bandhan passed off since long and brother sister love and affection which was to be exchanged through said thread of bond cannot be celebrated with such fanfare and zeal due to negligent and callous acts of the Opposite Party. The aforesaid act of the Opposite Party in not delivering the envelop containing the rakhi of the complainant sent to her brother is an act of deficiency in service, mal practices, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that the registered article No.RP5719723791N was booked from Amritsar Kutchery Post office on 2.7.2016 at 1141 hours and said article was despatched to Amritsar Rail mail service in the bag No.RBP003994242 duly entered in registered list  at the serial No.34/47. As per the tracking details of the article on India Post website, the article has been despatched  from New Delhi for New Zealand on 23.7.2016 which was received by the concerned  authorities (New Zealand) on 28.7.2016. The article was meant for delivery to the addressee on 29.7.2016, but it could not be delivered as addressee was not available. The concerned authorities henceforth updated the status that article/ item being held and addressee being notified. It clearly means that the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as the Opposite Party has duly delivered the article to the destination country without any delay.

8.       It is not denial by the Opposite Party that the parcel in question was booked by Opposite Party for delivery at its destination in New Zealand and it could not reach the addressee. It is contended by the Opposite Party that the parcel could not be delivered as addressee was not available. The concerned authorities henceforth updated the status that article/ item being held and addressee being notified. It clearly means that the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant as the Opposite Party has duly delivered the article to the destination country without any delay. On the other hand, the complainant has placed on record the documents Ex.C2 to C5 to prove his assertion. In Ex.C3, the addressee has specifically mentioned that he has not received the rakhi sent by his sister. Ex.C4 also proves that the complainant had sent rakhi to his brother in New Zealand and the brother of complainant wrote letter to the complainant telling that he has not received  any intimation  by post office and all these averments have nowhere denied by the Opposite Party. But the Opposite Party only asserted that Opposite Party has duly delivered the article to the destination country without any delay, but it could not be reached at its destination i.e. brother of the complainant because till the filing of the present complaint, the brother of the complainant has not received the rakhi despite so many efforts made by her. As such, the only inference which can not be drawn under the circumstances would be that the complainant has suffered mental agony and physical pain on account of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party  and the complainant is entitled to be adequately compensated.

9.       Although the complainant has made a claim for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, but she has not given any detail nor any documentary proof to prove the actual loss occasioned to her on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, but this Forum is competent to indulge in guess working and further use its experience to assess the actual loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant is entitled to such compensation  only to make good the actual loss suffered by her and no exorbitant or  fanciful amount can be awarded as compensation.

10.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and loss occasioned by the complainant on account of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant is entitled to grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- from the Opposite Party  while a sum of Rs.2,000/- is imposed upon the Opposite Party on account of litigation expenses and the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, awarded amount shall carry interest @ 6% p.a from the date of passing of order until full and final recovery. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum