RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.1622 of 2001

1- Sandesh (R) Prime Couriers,

    Rajeshwari Complex, Elite Crossing,

    Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh.

2- Sri Hira Lal Verma, Manager/Proprietor,

    Sandesh (R) Prime Couriers,

    Rajeshwari Complex, Elite Crossing,

    Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh.                                 ...Appellants.

Versus

Ajay Enterprises, Near Elite Cinema,

Jhansi through its Proprietor,

Sri Ajay Kumar Jain.                                  .…Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Jugul Kishor, Member.

None appeared.

Date        11.2.2015

JUDGMENT

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.7.2001 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Jhansi in complaint case No.54 of 1994, the appellants Sandesh (R) Prime Couriers and another have preferred the instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Act 68 of 1986) on the ground that the impugned order is arbitrary, perverse and is bad in the eye of law. It was delivered without proper appreciation of law and/or application of mind on the basis of surmises and conjunctures  only and, therefore, it has been prayed that the same be set aside in the interest of

(2)

justice otherwise, the appellants will suffer irreparable loss.

Since the appeal was pending for the last 13 years for disposal, therefore, in view of the provisions contained under Section 8(6) of he U.P. Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, we preferred to take up the appeal for disposal on the basis of evidence on record.

From perusal of the records, it transpires that the  respondent/complainant Ajay Enterprises, Jhansi had sent a Demand Draft bearing no.375720 to Rajendra Enterprises, MG Road, Hari Parvat, Agra on 23.7.1998 through the appellant Courier Service run by the appellant no.2. The appellants had given a receipt bearing no.4417 and had also assured that the envelop would reach its destination by 25.7.1998. However, it did not reach its destination till 30.7.1998 and consequently, the respondent/complainant had to obtain a duplicate Demand Draft for which he was denied discount of 3%. Aggrieved by this deficiency in service, the complaint case no.54 of 1999 was filed. After hearing the parties, a meagre amount of Rs.1,000.00 was awarded to the respondent/ complainant as compensation and Rs.500.00 towards cost of litigation. Aggrieved by this judgment and order, the instant appeal has been filed.

We have gone through the impugned judgment and order. It is based on facts, circumstances and evidence on record. The judgment is well discussed and after considering all evidence available on record, the order was passed. The appellant has neither filed any terms

(3)

and conditions to limit his contractual liabilities nor has shown any prima-facie remiss in the order and, therefore, the ruling laid down in Bharathi Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., 1996 CCJ 1035 is not applicable in the mater in hand. Besides this, the appellant has not denied the factum of transaction between the parties. In view of the above, we find no irregularity, illegality or remiss in the judgment and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. Consequently, the appeal, being meritless, is liable to be dismissed.

ORDER

The appeal, being meritless, is dismissed. No order as to costs.  Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with the rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                                (Jugul Kishor)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.4