PROFESSIONAL COURIER Vs. BALKRISHNA
ANDHRA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter could be disposed of at the stage of admission.
(2.) THE case of the complainant in brief is that he sent a cover containing certificates and interview card to Chandarbhan Jaimini, H.No.7/408, New Mahavir Colony, Sonepat District, Haryana on 4.4.2008 through the appellants' courier vide receipt Ex. A3. The appellants instead of sending it to Sonepat District, sent it to Hyderabad. Later when questioned, they have informed that they have sent it mistakenly to Hyderabad address, however, he was informed that it would be sent to Sonepat but it did not reach Sonepat and the cover was returned on 23.4.2008 without service. In fact the date of interview was 22.4.2008 and though his wife attended the interview for the post of Librarian at Defence Research and Development Organization at Bangalore without certificates, she was not selected. She lost the appointment and, therefore, he sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000.
(3.) THE appellants despite the fact that they engaged an advocate, did not choose to contest the matter and were set ex parte before the District Forum.
The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs. A1 to A3.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.