Shri Charanjit Singh S/O late Shri Sardar Harbans Singh, 24-Meghna Complex, The Mall, Shimla.
1. ON-Dot Couriers and Cargo Limited,
R/O R-551, Main Shankar Road,
New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi-110060.
2. Branch Manager,
On Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd.
35/11. Ganj Bazar, Shimla.
O R D E R:
This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that he sent one suit duly stitched, to one Shri Kuldeep Singh Kochar, Ludhiana, through the OP No.2, which was not delivered to the consignee by the OPs. He further averred that the cost of the suit was Rs.7250/- and the OPs in not delivering the booked goods, to the consignee, has indulged in an unfair trade practice. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent, as detailed, in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. The OPs in their written version to the complaint raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis status of the complainant as a consumer, jurisdiction and lack of deficiency in service. On merits, it is contended that the consignment so booked by the complainant to be delivered to the consignee was duly delivered. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, have, also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.
4. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in, not having delivered the consignment to the consignee. The OPs resist, the, above grievance and in a detailed reply, have, contended that the consignment has come to be delivered to the consignee, in support whereof, it, has annexed the relevant computer generated record. The said fact has not come to be controverted by any rejoinder having been filed to it, by, the counsel for the complainant. Obviously, the said fact of delivery of the concerned goods to the consignee hence, comes to, be substantiated especially, when the consignee repudiate the proof qua delivery of the consignment, as, sought to be established by the computer generated record.
5. The complainant claims compensation for belated delivery of the consignment to the consignee, yet, has not established by adduction of adequate evidence, that, the goods when it came to be belatedly delivered to the consignee, had, by such, im-promptitude on the part of the OPs, in its delivery, to, the consignee, had resulted in any financial loss to him. Hence, the complaint, being lack of devoid of any merits, is, liable to be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, the complaint is dismissed, however leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.