BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM<br /> PRESENT:<br /> <br /> SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No: 267/2002 Filed on 27..06..2002<br /> Dated : 09..04..2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> V.Jayaraj, VP-1/245, Ganapath, Perukavu,<br /> Thiruvananthapuram – 695 573.<br /> Opposite party:<br /> <br /> The Professional Couriers, represented by Shri. Mohan,<br /> Area Manager, Professional Couriers (P) Ltd., Sreevas<br /> Buildings, Chentitta, Tvpm.<br /> (By Adv. Smt. Salini S. Nath)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 10..02..2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15..03..2008, the Forum on 09..04..2008 delivered the following:<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A, MEMBER:<br /> <br /> The complaint has been filed by Shri. V.Jayaraj against the Professional Couriers claiming compensation for deficiency in service.<br /> The case of the complainant is that he had entrusted a consignment to the opposite party by paying an amount of Rs.10/- on 02..01..2002, to be sent to his brother at Alwaye. But later on the consignee informed the complainant that he had received only I CD whereas the complainant had reported having entrusted 3 CD's & 2 floppies to the opposite party. The consignee had no quick and foolproof method open to him, on the spur of the moment to check whether or not the envelope had been tampered with and contents intercepted/pilferred by anyone and the certificate regarding the receipt of the item in good condition was obviously given without any hesitation since the envelope had apparently been cellotaped securely. Only after opening the cover and checking the contents did it become clear to the consignee that all the declared items had not been delivered in tact. This was informed to the opposite party. Since the complainant did not get any positive response from opposite party, complainant approached this Forum claiming compensation of Rs.1,350/- alongwith other appropriate relief from the opposite party.<br /> 2. The opposite party had filed their version contending as follows: The consignment entrusted by the complainant to the opposite party on 02..01..2002 by paying Rs.10/- has been delivered in good condition without any delay to the consignee. This has been admitted in the complaint, besides the signature of the consignee in the consignment note stating that the consignment has been received in good order condition. The opposite party had received a complaint from the complainant for which a detailed reply was given by the opposite party stating that since the delivery of the consignment was in tact and since the consignee had received the consignment in good order/condition, the opposite party is not responsible for any alleged loss. Moreover, as per the courier consignment note, which is the basis of the contract between the parties, has been signed by the complainant which shows that the complainant has accepted the terms and conditions printed on its back.<br /> 3. As per the said terms and conditions, if at all the complainant had suffered any loss due to the act of this opposite party, the opposite party's liability has to be confined to Rs.100/- only.<br /> 4. The complainant had neither disclosed the contents nor the value of the contents at the time of entrustment of the consignment and this opposite party was not aware of the contents of the consignment. So the averments regarding the CDs are not known to the opposite party. If the value of the consignment was far in excess of the maximum limited liability indicated, the complainant ought to have taken a transit insurance cover.<br /> 5. Hence complainant is not entitled to any reliefs claimed for, opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs to the opposite party.<br /> 6.The complainant has been examined as PW1, and Exts.P1 to P8 have been marked on his side. The opposite party has filed their affidavit. No documents have been marked for the opposite party.<br /> 7.The main points to be considered are:<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?<br /> 8.Points (i) & (ii): The opposite party admits that a consignment has been entrusted to them by the complainant on 02..01..2002 by paying an amount of Rs.10/-. The complainant does not have a case that the consignment has not been delivered to the destination. The main dispute is with regard to the contents of the consignment. The complainant claims that, the consignment consisted of 3 CD's (Educational Software – Med/Engg. Entrance Examinations) and 2 floppies. Ext. P1 is the courier consignment note on which the conditions of carriage are also printed. Admittedly, Ext.P1 has been signed by the complainant. However, the complainant had not given any declaration with regard to the contents of the consignment and the value of the consignment in the consignment note which were essential. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the absence of a declaration with regard to the contents of the consignment renders it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to establish the contents and thereafter evaluate the value of the consignment. It is a settled position that the consignee is bound to disclose the nature of contents before sending the consignment, and if the documents were of great value, the consignment should have been insured also. On going through the deposition of PW1, it is seen that the complainant had signed the Ext.P1 after understanding the terms and conditions. Further, it has been admitted by the complainant in the complaint that the consignee had given the certificate regarding the receipt of the item in good condition without any hesitation since the envelope had apparently been cellotaped securely though he had further stated that he could not at one glance detect evidence of tampering on the envelope such as its torn state in some spots, extra cellotaping obviously done by the miscreant after the tampering etc'. The complainant cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. Firstly he says the consignment has been received in good condition.Then he says the envelope had been tampered when despatched. The complainant had no direct knowledge with regard to this. The complainant submits all these on the basis of the information given by the consignee which is only hearsay.<br /> 9.In this circumstance, the Forum is inclined to conclude that the consignment has been received by the complainant in good condition since the complainant has failed to prove otherwise.<br /> In the result the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 9th day of April, 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> ad.<br /> O.P.No: 267/2002<br /> <br /> APPENDIX <br /> I.Complainant's witness:<br /> <br /> PW1 : Jayaraj<br /> II.Complainant's documents:<br /> <br /> Ext.P1 : Photocopy of the Professional Couriers' courier consignment note dated 02..01..2002.<br /> <br /> P2 : Photocopy of addressee<br /> P3 : Photocopy of letter issued to the Area Manager, Professional Couriers(P) Ltd,<br /> Chenthitta, Tvpm by V. Jayaraj.<br /> P4 : Photocopy of letter dated 30..01..2002 issued to the Area Manager, Professional Courier (P) Ltd.,Chenthitta, Tvpm by V.Jayaraj.<br /> P5 : Photocopy of letter dated 31..01..2002 issued to Mr. V.Jayaraj from Professional Couriers Administrative Wing.<br /> P6 : Photocopy of condition of carriage<br /> <br /> P7 : Letter issued to the Area Manager from V.Jayaraj<br /> P8 : Reg. With AD dated 13..02..2002 from Professional Couriers to Mr. V.Jayaraj<br /> <br /> III.Opposite party's witness: N I L<br /> <br /> IV.Opposite party's documents: N I L<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT.<br /> <br />