State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dtdc Courier & Cargo Ltd. vs Urmila on 10 July, 2015
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 440 / 2010
DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.
having its Registered Office at D.T.D.C. House No. 3
Victoria Road, Bangalore and Regional Office at Delhi and
one of its Branch Office at Opposite Rishikul, Haridwar
through Branch Manager
......Appellant / Opposite Party
Versus
Smt. Urmila W/o Sh. Hari Chand
R/o House No. S-119, Shivalik Nagar
BHEL, Ranipur, Haridwar
......Respondent / Complainant
Sh. M.K. Kohli, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
None for Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. D.K. Tyagi, H.J.S., Member
Mrs. Veena Sharma, Member
Dated: 10/07/2015
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 114 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant - opposite party to refund the booking amount of the consignment in question amounting to Rs. 540/- to the respondent - complainant together with interest @9% p.a. pendente lite and future and the appellant - opposite party was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 2,400/- towards litigation expenses to the respondent - complainant.2
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that Km. Swati, the daughter of the complainant - Smt. Urmila, was studying in Institute of Hotel Management and Catering Technology, Trivandrum and was a student of B.S.C. 1st year in Hotel Management Course. It was alleged that the daughter of the complainant expressed desire to the complainant to send her some sweets etc. through courier service. On this, the complainant decided to send the eatable items to her daughter through courier. The complainant booked the packet with the appellant on 04.02.2009 for delivery to her daughter. At the time of booking, the complainant was assured that the consignment would be delivered to the addressee positively by 06.02.2009. When the consignment was not delivered on 06.02.2009, the complainant contacted the appellant on 07.02.2009, whereupon she was told that the consignment would be delivered today and the same thing was told to her on 08.02.2009 and 09.02.2009 also, but the consignment was not delivered to the addressee. When the complainant tried to contact the authorised representative of the appellant on his mobile, the same was found intentionally switched off w.e.f. the evening of 07.02.2009 till the morning of 10.02.2009. It was also alleged that the consignment was delivered to the addressee on 10.02.2009 in damaged condition and the contents of the consignment were not in eatable condition. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.
3. The District Forum issued notice to the appellant, but the appellant did not appear before the District Forum and, as such, the District Forum vide order dated 11.09.2009 proceeded the consumer complaint ex-parte against the appellant and decided the same vide 3 impugned order dated 14.12.2009 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appeal.
4. None appeared on behalf of respondent - complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have also perused the record. It appears from the impugned judgment and order that before the District Forum, the consumer complaint proceeded ex-parte against the appellant. The appellant did not file any written statement before the District Forum against the consumer complaint filed by the complainant. It is a settled principle of law that all the parties involved in the matter in question should get proper opportunity of being heard.
5. We have noticed that the appellant could not file written statement before the District Forum and the District Forum did not give opportunity to the appellant for adducing evidence on affidavit and disposed of the consumer complaint merely on the basis of the pleadings of the complainant only, which is contrary to the principle of natural justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Topline Shoes Ltd. Vs. Corporation Bank; II (2002) CPJ 7 (SC), has observed that "it is for the Forum or the Commission to consider all facts and circumstances along with the provisions of the Act providing time frame to file reply, as a guideline, and then to exercise its discretion as best it may serve the ends of justice and achieve the object of speedy disposal of such cases keeping in mind the principle of natural justice as well."
6. In view of the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum and set aside the same.
47. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case of Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) and another; I (2008) CPJ 109 (NC), has held that disposing of the complaint simply on pleadings without directing the parties to file evidence by way of affidavits is illegal on the face of it. The Hon'ble National Commission in the aforesaid judgment has also held that "moreover without adducing evidence, both the parties obviously did not get an opportunity to prove their respective case, in view of which, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the District Forum, which is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Forum below to give an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence by way of affidavits and also permit cross-examination through questionnaire and reply and only after completion of all the necessary procedure as per law, the District Forum shall hear the case on merit and dispose it of preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order."
8. Thus, we feel it just and proper to remand the case to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law. The appellant shall file its written statement before the District Forum on or before 10.08.2015 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall afford a reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. The District Forum shall take all sort of endeavour to decide the consumer complaint as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the appellant.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2009 passed by the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Forum for decision afresh in accordance with law. The appellant is 5 directed to file its written statement before the District Forum on or before 10.08.2015 positively and thereafter the District Forum shall grant reasonable opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case. The District Forum is further directed to decide the consumer complaint expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing the written statement by the appellant. It is made clear that the District Forum shall not grant any adjournment to the appellant seeking time for filing the written statement. Copy of the order be sent to the District Forum, Haridwar immediately. No order as to costs.
(MRS. VEENA SHARMA) (D.K. TYAGI) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K