- (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( the Act ) directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) in Complaint Case No. 157/2000. The District Forum by the impugned order has dismssed the complaint.
(2.) COMPLAINANT has stated in his complaint that the respondent No. 4 had sent spectacles, frames, lenses, and glasses to the complainant by a registered post parcel under receipt No. 2180, Malkaganj Post Office, Delhi. A credit memo was also issued on 24.4.2000. It is averred that on 1.5.2000 learning of arrival of the said parcel, the complainant went to the Head Post Office at Ambikapur where he was shown the damaged parcel. He requested for open delivery of the parcel, but it was refused. However, it was agreed that the parcel will be weighed and certificate of the weight issued. Accordingly, on weighing the parcel was found to weigh only 820 grams and a shortage in weight by 730 grams was found. It is further stated that the parcel was opened by the complainant in the verandah of the Post Office in the presence of P.K. Goyal, Kuldip Malik, S.N. Pathak, Narendra Tuteja and Ashok Kumar, and it contained pieces of paper and small bricks in place of the articles booked. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 11,220 as price of the articles lost, Rs. 71 as postage paid and Rs. 5,000 as damages for mental harassment have been claimed.
(3.) REPLY has been filed by the respondent No. 2/OP 2. It is admitted that a registered parcel numbered at 2180 was booked to the complainant s address on 26.4.2000, from Malkaganj Delhi Post Office and was received in Ambikapur Post Office on 1.5.2000. The said parcel was stitched by thread from all sides and appeared intact and undamaged. However, the weight of the parcel was found to be only 820 gms as against 1550 gms as mentioned on the parcel at the time of the booking. This discrepancy was noted in the departmental records and intimation to the respective offices sent. The parcel was delivered to the complainant and acknowledgement obtained with clear endorsement regarding weight. A certificate was also issued on the request of the complainant the same evening. Since the parcel had already been delivered earlier in the day question of open delivery did not arise. It is denied that the respondents/opposite parties had any knowledge of the contents of the parcel. First objection raised by the respondents/opposite parties is that the complaint does not lie as the parcel was not booked by him. It is submitted that the person booking the parcel alone had the right to approach the Forum as complainant. In our opinion the complainant being the beneficiary of the transaction is included in the definition of consumer under the Act and is entitled to complain under the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the objection regarding tenability of the complaint cannot be entertained.;