Delhi

North

CC/345/2024

ABHISHEK TANDON - Complainant(s)

Versus

XPRESSBEES LOGISTICS SOLUTIONS PVT LTD & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

30 Aug 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.: 345/2024

Date of institution: 12.08.2024

Date of disposal:    30.08.2024

In the matter of

Abhishek Tandon

S/o Narayan Tandon

R/o 29/04, South Facing Dahiya House

Indra Vikas Colony, near Nirankari Colony

Delhi-110009

Also at:

I-104, Vishal Nagar, Ward No.45

Telibandha, Ravigram Bindrawangarh

Raipur, Chattisgarh -492006                           …       Complainant

 

Versus

 

Xpressbees Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Mustatil No.16, Kila No.4/2

Village Samalakha, near Telephone Exchange

New Delhi-110037

Also at:

Plot No.241, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I

Gurgaon, Haryana-122016                    …       Opposite Party No. 1

Gajendra Nath Jha (Kalyan Trade Link)

Address - Shop No.12, Patel Chest

Opposite Christian Colony,

Near Maurice Nagar Police Station,        

Delhi University, Delhi-110007                        ...       Opposite Party No. 2

ORDER

30.08.2024

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

1. We have heard the arguments led by Shri Ashu Bidhuri, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant on the last date of hearing. By way of this complaint, the Complainant has alleged that the items from his consignment booked with M/s Xpressbees Logistics Solutions Pvt Ltd (OP-1 herein) through its booking agent namely Shri Gajendra Jha (Kalyan Trade Link) (OP-2 herein, were replaced before delivery.
2. The Complainant alleges that he, through his friend namely Shri Rajnesh Kanwar (not a party) booked a consignment containing two items- “(i) Yonex Carbonex 6000 Racket including enhancement charges (worth 7000/- Rupees) and (ii) Brown Colour pants from Westside (worth 1000/- Rupees)” with OP-2 for its delivery to the Complainant at his Jodhpur address. It is stated that the payment of Rs. 330/- was also made by him to the OP-2 by way of UPI transaction for booking of the said consignment. It is case of the Complainant that the OP-2 did not give the consignment number immediately and the same was provided at later stage by way of a message. The Complainant also alleges that no receipt was also issued by the OP-2. When the Consignment was delivered to the addressee/ Complainant, the Complainant only received one pant which was different from the pant that was booked. Hence, the Complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the OPs herein.
3. We have gone through the complaint and documents so attached by the Complainant. The Complainant has alleged that he booked the consignment, but he has not filed any booking receipt. It is also not stated that the consignment was pre-packed when it was given to OP-2. However, during arguments, it was informed that the consignment was not pre-packed and the items were handed over to OP-2 and OP-2 did the packing of the consignment.
4. The allegations made on behalf of the Complainant do not inspire confidence of this Commission for more than one reason. First, there is no booking receipt submitted by the Complainant making it difficult to substantiate the claim regarding the details of the items booked by the Complainant. The fact that the Complainant did not insist for the consignment receipt at the time of booking and also the fact that the Complainant/his representative did not pre-pack the consignment also raises suspicion about correctness of the allegations. The consignment to be booked with any courier agency is required to be pre-packed and the consignor is required to appropriate declaration before booking of the consignment, if the consignment is any valuable item. In the case in hand, the consignment was neither is pre-packed nor its value was declared at the time of booking.
5. Even in the reply to the email sent by the Complainant to the OP-1 herein, the OP-1 has also asserted that the OPs have no control on the contents of the shipment. The consignor is indeed responsible for the contents of the shipments. In the case in hand, the consignor is also not a party and there is no declaration from him that he has handed over the items as alleged in this complaint to the OP-2.
6. We have noticed that in the complaint, the Complainant, in paragraph 4 of the complaint has stated that “Brown Colour pants from Westside (worth 1000/- Rupees)” was booked. However in paragraph 13, the Complainant has stated that he has booked “Westside Company Jeans”. The discrepancy in the disruption of the items booked again raises suspicion about the correctness of the complaint.
7. The allegations made by the Complainant require detailed examination and cross examination of the parties. The alleged facts are not established by any of the documentary evidences. In absence of any prima facie evidence, it is not possible for us to examine this complaint. In the case in hand, the allegations require detailed examination as none of the allegations made in the complaint are prima facie substantiated by any documents or records.
8. In a complaint under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the case is decided in summary proceedings in which leading of detailed evidences, examination and cross examination of parties is not permitted. In such a situation, where parties require leading of evidences and the examination & cross examination of parties is necessary, the Complainant can approach the jurisdictional civil court. The appropriate forum to decide such disputes is the civil court. In this context, we would like to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Synco Industries vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur [(2002) 2 SCC 1], in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that in cases where detailed evidence are required to be led to prove the claim or the damages, Consumer Fora are not appropriate forum to decide the dispute in summary procedure. In the case in hand, for adjudication of the claims of the parties, detailed pleadings and evidences are required to be led, which is beyond the scope of adjudication by this Consumer Forum.
9. Hence, we do not prima facie find any substance in the allegations made by the Complainant herein in this complaint. Accordingly, this complaint is dismissed at admission stage itself being devoid of merits.
10. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order to the parties in accordance with the rules. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member