First Appeal No. 272 of 2011. Case: Sur Sangam Electronics Vs Brij Mohan Garg and Anr.. Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 272 of 2011 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. Deepak Ahluwalia, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Yudhvir Handa, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 |
| Judges | B.C. Kandpal, J. (President) and C.C. Pant, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 15 |
| Judgement Date | February 10, 2014 |
| Court | Uttaranchal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
C.C. Pant, Member
-
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.
-
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial