National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Dtdc Courier And Cargo Limited vs Amardeep Singh on 23 April, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION No. 1147 of 2013 (From the order dated 06.09.2012 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal no. 1468 of 2008) DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited Regional Office at B /1/ 01 Naraina Industrial Area, Phase II New Delhi Petitioner Through Shri Rakesh Kumar Sinha Authorised Representative Versus Amardeep Singh Son of Shri Sukhdev Singh Resident of Patel Nagar Pathankot and Partner of Respondent M/s Med Vision 35 Improvement Trust Pathankot BEFORE: HONBLE MR JUSTICE V B GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HONBLE MRS REKHA GUPTA MEMBER For the Petitioner Mr M K Sinha, Advocate Pronounced on 23rd April 2013 ORDER
REKHA GUPTA Revision petition no. 1147 of 2013 has been filed against the order dated 06.09.2012 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (the State Commission) in First Appeal no. 1468 of 2008 whereby the State Commission has confirmed the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gurdaspur (the District Forum).
The brief facts of the case as per the respondent/complainant are as follows:
That the respondent/ complainant is doing the business under the name and style of M/s Med Vision, 35, Improvement Trust, Pathankot and used to send the goods/ equipments through HDTC courier Branch, Pathankot. Hence, the complainant is a consumer to the petitioner/opposite party. The respondent/complainant has send a courier parcel containing medical equipment, through the opposite party no.1 / petitioner i.e., DTDC Courier Ltd., Pathankot on behalf of his firm M/s Me division to M/s Larson and Tourbo Ltd., 32, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi vide docket no. 236473503 dated 16.09.2006 but the parcel was not delivered to M/s Larson and Tourbo Ltd., 32, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi till today.
The respondent/ complainant had approached the petitioner/ opposite party no. 1 number of times personally and also have contacted over phone. The respondent/complainant also approached to the petitioner/ opposite party no. 2 on phone and requested them to locate the parcel or to compensate him. The respondent/complainant also moved a letter dated 24.02.2007 to the petitioner opposite party no.2 regarding the delivery of courier to the addressee, but of no use. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has sent a legal notice to the opposite parties through counsel but the opposite party did not give any reply to the legal notice dated 24.04.2007of the respondent/ complainant.
The respondent/ complainant has written the exact value of the goods i.e., 2,53,050/- as per the rate list according to the letter dated 18.04.2007 issued to the respondent/ complainant by the Larsen and Tourbo Ltd.
The petitioner/ opposite party in their written statement have stated that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form, as the complaint is barred by limitation. The claim against the replying opposite party can be filed within one month as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
All the terms and conditions of the replying petitioner/ opposite parties were read over to the respondent/ complainant at the time of booking of the consignment and the respondent/complainant has accepted the terms and conditions at the time of booking the consignment as such the replying petitioner/ opposite parties are liable in case of any damages occurred during the course of business, to the extent of Rs.100/-. No declaration of consignment was disclosed by the respondent/ complainant at the time of its booking.
The District Forum vide order dated 29.05.2008 have stated as follows:
For the reasons recorded above, the complaint were acceptance to be allowed. Petitioner/opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,35,000/- as the price of the equipment got booked through it by the respondent/complainant along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation litigation charges and on account of mental agony and harassment to be suffered because of all this. Compliance of this order be made within a month from the receipt of the copy of the order.
Aggrieved by the order of the District, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission vide their order dated 06.09.2012 has stated as follows:
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the District Forum has rightly allowed the complaint, the impugned order is perfectly legal, valid and does not call for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed with costs. Litigation cost are assessed at Rs.5,000/-.
The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission along with the appeal on 22.12.2008. They also deposited another sum of Rs.47,500/-. This amount of Rs.72,500/-
with interest, if any, accrued thereon be remitted by the Registry to the respondent/complainant by way of a cross cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
Dissatisfied by the order of the State Commission, the petitioner has filed the present revision petition before us.
Along with the revision petition, the petitioner has filed an application for condonation of delay of 93 days, but as per the office report, there is a delay of 96 days. The reasons given for the delay in the application by the petitioner are as follows:
The petitioner/revisionists after receiving the order on 17.09.2012 send the same to the local counsel for legal opinion which was only made available to him on 27.12.2012. Thereafter the file along with the opinion was sent to the Zonal Office at New Delhi. The Zonal Office after citing its opinion on the file sent the opinion for further recommendation from the Head Office at Bangalore which was only approved on 10.03.2013 thereafter, the present revision petition has been filed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
There is no explanation as to why the local counsel who has not been named, took over three months to give his opinion. Thereafter the file is said to have been sent to the Zonal Office at New Delhi and then the Head Office at Bangalore. But no dates have been mentioned. It is also mentioned that the opinion was only approved on 10.03.2003. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not explain that being a courier company itself why transit of files and records should have taken almost three months. The revision petition was filed on 22.03.2013.
The apex court in the case of In Anshul Aggarwal v. New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, IV (2011) CPJ 63 (SC), has held that:
It is also apposite to observe that while deciding an application filed in such cases for condonation of delay, the Court has to keep in mind that the special period of limitation has been prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for filing appeals and revisions in consumer matters and the object of expeditious adjudication of the consumer disputes will get defeated if this Court was to entertain highly belated petitions filed against the orders of the Consumer Foras.
Accordingly, we find that there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay of 93 days in filing the present revision petition. The application for condonation of delay is without any merit as well as having no legal basis and is not maintainable. Consequently, the present revision petition being time barred by limitation and is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-. (Rupees ten thousand only).
Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost by way of demand draft in the name of Consumer Welfare Fund as per Rule 10 A of Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, within four weeks from today. In case the petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, then it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum till realisation.
List on 31st May 2013 for compliance.
Sd/-
..
[ V B Gupta, J.] Sd/-
..
[Rekha Gupta] Satish