3

necessary party i.e. Pulivendula branch. The respondents requested to dismiss the

complaint against them.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for

determination.

i. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

ii. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the

respondents?

iii. To what relief?

5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A10 were marked. No documents

were filed and marked on behalf of the respondents. Written arguments were filed by

the complainant in person. Oral arguments were heard from both sides

6. Point No. 1& 2 Ex. A1 is the original consignment note No. PVD 85212.

Ex. A2 is the Xerox copy of legal notice. Ex. A3 is the speed post receipt dt.

13-4-2009. Ex. A4 is the letter dt. 13-4-2009 from Post Master, Proddatur addressed

to the counsel of the complainant. Ex. A5 is the cover address to the Principal, S.V.

Medical College, Tirupati from address of the complainant was also written on it. The

application form for Post Graduate Entrance Test 2009-10 was clearly printed on the

cover and last date 20-2-2009 is also written on the cover. Ex. A6 is the Xerox copy

of consignment No. PVD 85212 delivering the professional couriers. Ex. A7 is the

Xerox copy of consignment No. PDT 271421. Ex. A8 is the Xerox copy of letter of the

complainant, dt. 16-7-2009 addressed to P.I.O., Professional Courier, Tirupati. Ex.

A9 are 12 original receipts of Professional Couriers of various dates. Ex. A10 is the

Xerox copy of service particulars of the complainant.

7. As could be seen from the documentary evidence on record the

complainant booked a cover with R1 at Proddatur on 18-2-2009 and the cover

containing the application for the Post of Medical Entrance Test 2009-10. Ex. A5 is

the crystal clear document to say that the cover was booked by the complainant at

4

Proddatur and the last date of receipt of the application was also written on the cover

as 20-2-2009. Since the said cover received by the addressee and after due date it

was returned undelivered. The contention of the respondents that the cover was

booked at Pulivendula branch and it was received by R1 on 19-2-2009. So there was

delay in receipt of Ex. A5 cover to the addressee intime. The other contention of the

respondents that the details i.e. what is the cover contain what is the last date etc.,

are not mentioned by the complainant stands without legs before truth. Since all

these particulars are very much available on Ex. A5 to the naked eye. The

contentions of the respondents that the cover was booked at Pulivendula also have

no legs to stand before truth. The scrutiny of 12 receipts (Ex. A9) is like this

1) Consignment No. 271421 of Proddatur booked at Pulivendula on 15-7-2009.

2) Consignment No. 274883 of Proddatur was booked at Pulivendula Branch.

3) Consignment No. 85663 of Pulivendula dt. 20-2-2009 was booked at Proddatur.

4) Consignment No. 85660, dt. 20-2-2009 of Pulivendula branch booked at

Proddatur. 5) Consignment No. 35953, dt. 4-5-2009 of Jammalamadugu was

booked at Proddatur. 6) Consignment No. 101184, dt. 7-4-2007 was booked at

Proddatur. 7) Consignment No. 18707, dt 19-4-2007 of Pulivendula was booked at

Proddatur. 8) Consignment No. 256307, dt. 31-8-2007 of jammalamadugu branch

booked at Proddatur. This indicates that the printed receipts of various branches of

the respondents are being used by different branches, irrespective of places of

booking. In view of this there is no reason to disbelieve the contention of the

complainant that he booked consignment cover of Ex. A5 at Proddatur on 18-2-2009.

8. The respondent vehemently argued that there is no merit on the facts of

the complaint and he relied on the following decisions. 1) (2005) CPJ 53 a case of

Saurabh Jain Vs. Madhur Courier service. In which the Hon’ble National

Commission observed that the delivery of envelop is concerned the Opposite parties

have delivered envelop to the addressee and therefore, the opposite party cannot be

5

held deficient. At last the complainant is entitled for the claim upto Rs. 100/-.

2) 2004 (3) ALD (Cons.) 21 (NC). A case between Desk to Desk courier and Cargo Vs.

Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd., their lordship observed that

the damage for non delivery of goods entrusted to the courier. The value of the goods

entrusted is not disclosed by the person entrusted it to the courier. He cannot claim

damages as per value of the goods. 3) IV (2007) CPJ 165 (NC). The case between

Indrapuri Express Courier Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Allied Business corporation in which

lordship observed that courier parcel non delivery – value of parcel not pre-declared

at time of booking terms contained in receipt constituted contract between parties –

showed liability for loss of booked parcel limited to Rs. 50/- only. The above

decisions relied by the respondents the facts and circumstances are quite different

with the facts and circumstances of the present consumer case. The complainant

relied on the following. 1)

couriers, Bhimavaram was ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the

complainant besides Rs. 1,000/- towards litigation costs for its defective service.

2) Courier company fined for poor service and has been fined Rs. 1,50,000/- by the

National Commission i n the case of Blaze Flash couriers Pvt. Ltd., Kozhikode Vs.

Rohit Poladiya. 3) Courier company was ordered to pay Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency of

service b y t h e Hon’ble Commission, Chandigar vide

http://itchandigarh.com/2007/07

facts of the present complaint almost tallies with regards to negligence and deficiency

of service in the delivery of consignment / cover booked by the complainant, as such

the complainant deserves consideration in his favour. The complainant claimed

compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-. But he failed to substantiate the same by giving

break up details of compensation, as such the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- is limited to

Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the complainant.

6

9. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed. Directing the R1 to

R3 jointly and severally to pay Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)

towards the compensation to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt

of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by us in the open forum, this the 24

MEMBER PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant : -

Ex. A1 Original consignment note No. PVD 85212.

Ex. A2 X/c of legal notice. Ex. A3 is the speed post receipt dt. 13-4-2009.

Ex. A4 Letter dt. 13-4-2009 from Post Master, Proddatur addressed to the

counsel of the complainant.

Ex. A5 Original cover address to the Principal, S.V. Medical College, Tirupati

Ex. A6 X/c of consignment No. PVD 85212 delivering the professional couriers.

Ex. A7 X/c of consignment No. PDT 271421.

Ex. A8 X/c of letter of the complainant, dt. 16-7-2009 addressed to P.I.O.,

Professional Courier, Tirupati.

Ex. A9 12 original receipts of Professional Couriers of various dates.

Ex. A10 X/c of service particulars of the complainant.

Exhibits marked for Respondents: - ----NIL----

MEMBER PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1) C. Venkata Subba Reddy, S/o C. Krishna Murthy Naidu,

H.No. 2/48-A, Potladurthi village and Post, Yerraguntla Mandal,

Kadapa district

2) Sri B. Siva Prasad Reddy, Advocate.

1) Copy was made ready on :

2) Copy was dispatched on :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :

B.V.P. - - -