NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4434/2009

TRACKON COURIERS PVT. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PRABHA SHAH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ATANU SAIKIA

18 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4434 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 09/10/2009 in Appeal No. 640/2008 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. TRACKON COURIERS PVT. LTD.C-143, Naraina Industrial Area Naraina,New Delhi-110028 ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. PRABHA SHAHK-15, Saket,New Delhi-110017 ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :MR. ATANU SAIKIA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 18 Jan 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. The District Forum had awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of painting, Rs.6000/- towards cost of packing and forwarding and Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony. The case of the Complainant was that the painting was sent to the customer through the Petitioner which reached in damaged conditions. The State Commission, however, modified the said order and instead of compensation of Rs.5000/- ordered the present Petitioner to 4 times the value charged for the consignment . The rest of the order of the District Forum was maintained. There are concurrent findings of two fora below that the painting had reached in damage condition and there was deficiency in service on the part of the present Petitioner. The State Commission has recorded in this order that the Complainant had also filed photocopy of the consignment to prove that the entire painting had been damaged when it was delivered to the buyer in U.K. In view of the above findings, I do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as I do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders of fora below. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER