BHAGAT RAM Vs. POST MASTER, POST OFFICE KHARAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The son of the complainant/petitioner sent a parcel containing some articles to the complainant/petitioner from U.S.A. The case of the complainant is that the said parcel contained articles worth Rs.36,600/- including one I Pad-2 with its cover. The parcel when tendered to the complainant was refused by him on the ground that some articles were missing from the parcel. Thereupon, the respondent retained the parcel which was retained by custom department and custom duty amounting to Rs.2,950/- was imposed based upon the value of the goods which were found in the parcel. Since I Pad was missing and no duty on the I-Pad was imposed, the complainant then approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, alleging deficiency on the part of the respondent in rendering services to him.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the respondent which denied in tempering with the parcel. The parcel in question was produced before the District Forum during the hearing of the consumer complaint and the articles found therein were delivered to the complainant. The District Forum also directed the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.33,650/- to the complainant that being the balance amount after adjusting the custom duty. Compensation was also awarded to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite party approached the concerned State Commission by way of appeal. The State Commission allowed the appeal. Hence, the complainant is before this Commission.

(3.) The only question of fact which arises in this Revision Petition is as to whether it was proved that the son of the complainant had actually sent articles worth Rs.36,600/- to the complainant. The case of the complainant is that the said articles included I-Pad-2 with its cover and the value of the goods sent to him would Rs.36,600/-. However, no direct evidence was led before the District Forum to prove that the articles sent by the son of the complainant from U.S.A. included an I Pad. No affidavit of the son of the complainant who is based in USA was filed. He was not produced as a witness. No insurance cover in respect of the articles sent in the parcel was taken. It was not disclosed on the parcel that it contained an I Pad, amongst other articles. Therefore, the complainant, in my opinion, failed to prove that the articles sent by the son of the complainant from USA included an I-Pad. If this is so, the order of the State Commission dismissing the complaint cannot be faulted with, when articles had already been delivered to the complainant before the District Forum and in fact he has not even paid the custom duty payable on those articles.