STREAM LINE EXPRESS COURIER Vs. MUKESH SAHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Impugned order passed by the District Forum below in complaint No. 772/2001, on 29.4.2004 cannot stand the test of judicial secrutiny. Per him the complaint as instituted was bad for non -joinder of necessary party i.e. Sh. Yogesh Mittal. In whose absence the complaint could not be effectively adjudicated upon. Therefore, on this ground alone this appeal deserves to be allowed. Alternatively per him he urged that the compensation assessed to the tune of Rs.1500/ - as cost of litigation is also on higher side. Plea of limited liability to the extent of Rs.100/ - only and nothing mere was also raised by Shri Verma in support of this appeal for modifying the impugned order.

(2.) Because learned counsel for the respondents was not present, therefore, with the assistance of Shri Verma, we have examined the file of the Forum below. Facts giving rise to this case are being briefly noted. On 7.7.2001 respondent sent a letter through the appellant. This was addressed to the Headmaster, Lawrance School, Sanawar. It was sent vide Annexure C -1. It was delivered on 18.7.2001. Case of the respondent set out in the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was, that when he handed over the letter for being delivered to the addressee, he was assured that it will reach on 8.7.2001: To similar effect is his stand in his evidence. On the materials on record, it is evident that the letter reached on 18.7.2001. Son of the respondent was studying in Lawrance School Sanawar. He had remitted draft of fee, last date for the payment whereof was 10.7.2001. Since, the amount was not received by the school authorities in time, as such, a fine of Rs.1595/ - was imposed by the school authorities on account of late deposit of the fee. This also resulted in causing insult to both father and son. Since, there was deficiency in service on the part of the appellant complaint was filed for payment of Rs.1595/ - with interest and cost etc.

(3.) When put to notice stand of the appellant was that the complaint was not maintainable because respondent was not a consumer, lend thus had no locus -standi to file the same. Complaint was bad for non -joinder of Shri Yogesh Mittal. In this context, it may be noted that for his impleadment, M.A. No. 410/2004 has been filed by the appellant in this appeal before us.