Decided on January 12,2010

Tiirtha Traders Authorized Distribution Of Andslite And Andsbag Appellant
Blaze Flash Courier Ltd Respondents


- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order passed by District Forum, Shimla, in Consumer Complaint No. 415/2007, decided on 18.8.2009 whereby the complaint of the appellant was partly allowed and respondent No. l was directed to indemnify the appellant to the extent of Rs. 100, besides litigation cost of Rs. 1,000 within a period of 45 days, after the receipt of copy of the order.
(2.) FACTS of the case as they emerge from the record are, that appellant had booked a parcel containing led torch light, BL -2 of the value of Rs. 13,821 by courier, respondent No. l on 25.9.2007. This was to be delivered to the consignee, respondent No. 2 at Hamirpur. For rendering this service respondent No. l charged a sum of Rs. 200 from the appellant as per Annexure C -l. Further averments in the complaint were that the said consignment was not delivered to the consignee thereafter the appellant repeatedly contacted the respondent No. l and apprised him of non -receipt of consignment, but that was of no avail, as such there was deficiency of service on the part of respondent No. l. In this background complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed wherein direction was sought, that respondent No. 1 be directed to pay the sum of Rs. 13,821 being value of the goods/parcel to the appellant with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. 25.9.2007. In addition to this damages to the tune of Rs. 2,000 and litigation cost at the rate of Rs. 5,000 was also sought from respondent No. l.
(3.) BRIEF resume of the unrebutted evidence led by the appellant in the present case is, that the appellant in support of its case has filed affidavit of its manager. He has reiterated what is mentioned in the complaint. Annexure C -l is the consignment note, Annexure C -2 the invoice of the led torch light indicating its price. On the other hand the respondent No. l did not file any evidence. Even reply is not supported with the affidavit. Respondent No. l filed its written version and then did not appear, so it was set ex parte. Respondent No. 2 was already ex parte. Stand of respondent was that best the appellant is entitled to Rs. 100 only. Deficiency of service was denied. No proof of the article sent by speed post having been delivered to the addressee was placed on record by respondent No. 1. A vague plea is also raised that it may have been lost in transit.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.