SUR SANGAM ELECTRONICS Vs. BRIJ MOHAN GARG

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.