ORDER Justice P.S. Rana (R) President. - Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order dated 17.08.2016 passed by Learned District Forum in consumer complaint No. 20/2016 title Vijay Singh v. M/s. Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Brief facts of consumer complaint : 2. Mrs. Vijay Singh filed consumer complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 pleaded therein that complainant sent a parcel through opposite party No.2 who is agent of opposite party No.1 on dated 27.09.2015 and paid Rs. 400/-(Four hundred) as consideration amount. It is pleaded that weight of parcel was 5 KG and parcel was to be delivered at Bangalore to Smt. Pooja Singh who is daughter of complainant. It is further pleaded that complainant daily telephoned opposite party No.2 and inquired about delivery of parcel but every time opposite party No.2 told the complainant that parcel would be delivered within two or three days. It is pleaded that parcel was not delivered to addressee and was not returned to complainant. It is further pleaded that thereafter legal notice was given to opposite parties on 16.10.2015. It is pleaded that total costs of material sent in parcel was Rs. 60000/-(Sixty thousand). Complainant sought relief of payment of Rs. 60000/-(Sixty thousand) alongwith interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 27.09.2015 till realization. In addition complainant also sought compensation of Rs. 50000/-(Fifty thousand) on account of mental agony & harassment. In addition complainant also sought litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 20000/-(Twenty thousand). Prayer for acceptance of consumer complaint sought. 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2 pleaded therein that as per terms and conditions of courier service courier agency is liable to pay Rs. 2000/-(Two thousand) per parcel. It is further pleaded that as per booking terms jewelleries are not allowed. It is pleaded that booking receipt issued to complainant constituted written agreement between complainant and opposite parties and complainant is bound by terms and conditions of receipt. It is further pleaded that no invoice of items were furnished to opposite parties at the time booking. It is pleaded that consignment booked in ordinary way lost in transit between Dharamshala and Banglore. It is pleaded that opposite party despite best efforts could not trace the consignment. It is further pleaded that no invoice of items were furnished to opposite parties at the time booking. It is pleaded that consignment booked in ordinary way lost in transit between Dharamshala and Banglore. It is pleaded that opposite party despite best efforts could not trace the consignment. It is further pleaded that complainant was duly informed and was offered an amount four times of courier charges as per terms and conditions of booking agreement. It is pleaded that opposite parties are ready to pay four times the charges obtained for booking and in alternative opposite parties are ready to pay Rs. 2000/-(Two thousand). Prayer for dismissal of consumer complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered opposite parties to pay jointly & severally an amount of Rs. 29750/-(Twenty nine thousand seven hundred fifty) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment. Learned District Forum further ordered that in addition opposite parties would pay an amount of Rs. 5000/-(Five thousand) as compensation for harassment. In addition learned District Forum further ordered that opposite parties would pay an amount of Rs. 3000/-(Three thousand) as litigation charges. Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum opposite parties filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of parties and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arise for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by appellants is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal? 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons : 7. Complainant filed affidavit Ext. CW1 in evidence. There is recital in affidavit that deponent sent a parcel through agent of opposite party No.1 i.e. opposite party No.2 from her residence on dated 27.09.2015 and paid consideration amount of Rs. 400/-(Four hundred). There is recital in affidavit that weight of parcel was 5 KG and parcel was to be delivered to Smt. Pooja Singh. There is further recital in affidavit that parcel was not delivered to addressee. There is recital in affidavit that parcel contained articles amounting to Rs. 60000/-(Sixty thousand). There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. 8. There is further recital in affidavit that parcel was not delivered to addressee. There is recital in affidavit that parcel contained articles amounting to Rs. 60000/-(Sixty thousand). There is recital in affidavit that opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. 8. Learned District Forum listed the consumer complaint for evidence of opposite parties on 24.06.2016, 19.07.2016 & 27.07.2016 but opposite parties did not adduce any evidence by way of affidavits qua controversial facts as mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Learned District Forum closed the evidence of opposite parties by order of Forum on dated 27.07.2016. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties that as per terms and conditions mentioned in annexure-C1 opposite parties are liable to pay an amount equivalent to four times of booking charges and in alternative courier service is liable to pay an amount of Rs. 2000/-(Two thousand) and on this aground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. State Commission has carefully perused receipt annexure-C1 issued by opposite parties relating to couriers service. Receipt annexure-C1 is not signed by complainant and column of sender signature in receipt has been kept blank. Similarly column of signature of receiver of Pkt/parcel has been also kept blank in receipt annexure-C1. It is well settled law that if any document is not signed by party then terms and conditions mentioned in the document could not be used against party. Even opposite parties did not file affidavit of opposite party No.2 who is agent of opposite party No.1 who booked parcel on behalf of couriers agency in order to prove that terms and conditions mentioned in annexure-C1 were duly explained to complainant. In view of the above stated facts it is held that terms & conditions in annexure-C1 relating to exclusion clause could not be used against complainant. See 2000 (2) SCC 734 Apex Court Modern Insulators Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Even Mrs. Vijay Singh is female senior citizen aged 67 years. It is well settled law that law declared by Apex Court of India is binding upon all courts, Commissions, Tribunals as per Article 141 of Constitution of India. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties that complainant did not declare the value of items and did not pay guarantee charges and on this ground opposite parties are not liable is decided accordingly. 10. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties that complainant did not declare the value of items and did not pay guarantee charges and on this ground opposite parties are not liable is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that terms & conditions of annexure-C1 is not signed by complainant and there is no evidence on record in order to prove that terms & conditions mentioned in booking receipt were duly explained to complainant in her vernacular language. Opposite parties did not file affidavit of opposite party No. 2 through whom parcel of complainant was booked for couriers service. Opposite party No.1 is vicariously liable for the act and conduct of opposite party No.2 because opposite party No.2 is agent of opposite party No.1. Hence it is held that exclusion terms and conditions mentioned in annexure-C1 could not be used against the complainant. It is well settled law that party could not be allowed to take benefit of its own wrong and laxity. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial proceedings. It is well settled law that receipt annexure-C1 is not per se admissible under Consumer Protection Act 1986. No reason assigned by opposite parties as to why opposite parties did not file affidavit of a person who has issued receipt annexure-C1. Hence adverse inference is drawn against the opposite parties for non-examination of a person who had issued booking receipt annexure-C1 on behalf of Trackon Couriers service. 11. Submission of the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of opposite parties that opportunity to adduce evidence was not given by learned District Forum and on this ground appeal be allowed is decided accordingly. We have carefully perused order sheet of learned District Forum. Consumer complaint was listed for evidence of opposite parties on dated 24.06.2016. On 24.06.2016 opposite parties did not adduce any evidence and thereafter consumer complaint was listed for 19.07.2017 for evidence of opposite parties. Again on 19.07.2016 opposite parties did not adduce any evidence and thereafter consumer complaint was listed for 27.07.2016 for evidence of opposite parties. Again opposite parties did not adduce any evidence on 27.07.2016 and learned District Forum closed the evidence of opposite parties by the order of Forum. Again on 19.07.2016 opposite parties did not adduce any evidence and thereafter consumer complaint was listed for 27.07.2016 for evidence of opposite parties. Again opposite parties did not adduce any evidence on 27.07.2016 and learned District Forum closed the evidence of opposite parties by the order of Forum. State Commission is of the opinion that learned District Forum has given sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence to opposite parties but despite sufficient opportunities opposite parties did not adduce any evidence qua controversial facts as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is well settled law that proceedings under Consumer Protection Act 1986 are quasi judicial time bound proceedings. State Commission is of the opinion that it is not expedient in the ends of justice and on the principle of natural justice to allow the opposite parties to take benefit of its own laxity and inaction. 12. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of complainant that order passed by learned District Forum did not warrants any interference is decided accordingly. State Commission is of the opinion that order passed by learned District Forum did not warrants any interference by State Commission because opposite parties did not adduce any rebuttal evidence qua controversial facts as per mode mentioned under section 13(4) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 despite several opportunities granted by learned District Forum. Point No.1 is decided accordingly. Point No. 2: Final Order 13. In view of findings upon point No.1 above appeal is dismissed. Order passed by learned District Forum dated 17.08.2016 in consumer complaint No. 20/2016 title Mrs. Vijay Singh v. M/s. Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. is affirmed. Receipt annexure-CI issued by opposite parties will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own litigation costs before State Commission. File of learned District Forum alongwith certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith free of costs strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.