C.C. Pant, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.11.2011 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun in consumer complaint No. 59 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the opposite parties, jointly or severally, and has directed them to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 40,000 within 30 days from the date of the order. The District Forum has also directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards cost of litigation. The District Forum has also clarified that if the said amount is recovered from the opposite party No. 1, then the opposite party No. 1 may recover the same from the opposite party No. 2. The consumer dispute is with regard to non -delivery of a parcel containing important documents, sent by the complainant -Sh. Brij Mohan Goyal through Sur Sangam Electronics (Blazeflash Couriers Ltd.) -opposite party No. 1 to New Delhi. In spite of making several enquiries from the opposite party No. 1, the complainant could not get satisfactory reply as to whom and where the said parcel was delivered. The complainant also issued notices through his Counsel to the opposite party No. 1 and Blazeflash Couriers Ltd., Mumbai -opposite party No. 2, but to no avail. This led the complainant to file a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun, The District Forum, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, allowed the consumer complaint in the above manner, vide its order dated 30.11.2011. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party No. 1 has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, impleading the complainant as respondent No. 1 and Blazeflash Couriers Ltd., Mumbai as respondent No. 2.
(2.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the appellant -opposite party No. 1 and respondent No. 1 -complainant and perused the material placed on record. None appeared for the respondent No. 2 -opposite party No. 2 in spite of proper service of the notice. The learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant is only a collection agent of respondent No. 2. The delivery of the parcels is accomplished by the respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the appellant should not be held liable if the parcel was not delivered. He also submitted that the consigner had neither disclosed the details of the consignment nor its value, which is apparent from the receipt. It is the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1, which indicates that the parcel contained Mark Sheets of Class -X and Class -XII of addressee's daughter Ms. Hunny Gupta and a crossed cheque of Rs. 5,000. The addressee, Sh. Umesh Kumar Gupta, has also filed an affidavit, which indicates that his daughter had come to Dehradun to take admission in Dehradun Institute of Technology (D.I.T.), Dehradun, but she could not clear the entrance test She had left her Mark Sheets with the complainant and the same were sent back to him. The learned Counsel's plea was that no one brings the certificates and mark sheets at the time of taking the admission test. These are required to be submitted at the time of Counselling. Therefore, these averments made by the respondent No. 1 and the addressee itself prove that the consumer complaint is based on false and fabricated facts. The District Forum has failed to make a just and proper appraisal of the evidences and, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. The learned Counsel also referred the following decisions in support of his contention: (a) The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Amit Sharma v. B.H.E.L. & Ors., II : (2013) CPJ 505 (NC) (b) The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Ram Niwas Soni v. Vaish Model Sr. Sec. School & Ors., II : (2013) CPJ 396 (NC) (c) The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Suresh Kumar v. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Coop. Ltd. & Anr., II : (2012) CPJ 170 (NC) (d) The decision of the Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Kumari Famy and Ors. v. Dr. Kavitha and Ors., I : (2013) CPJ 34 (NC) : 2013 (1) CPR 85 (NC).
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent No. 1 reiterated the facts of the case and argued in support of the impugned order. He also apprised this Commission that the respondent No. 2 had deposited a sum of Rs. 22,500 with the District Forum and the respondent No. 1 has received the same.;