Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/106/2016

Akkamahadevi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorized Signator, Professional Couriers, - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.P.S.Sathyanarayana Rao

28 Jun 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:23.11.2016

DISPOSED      ON:28.06.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 106/2016

 

DATED:  28^th JUNE 2017

PRESENT: - SRI.T.N. SREENIVASAIAH   : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,  

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	Smt. Akkamahadevi, W/o Jayakumar, Assistant Master, Govt. Higher Primary School, Pitlali, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurg-577501.   (Rep by Sri. P.S. Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	Authorized Signatory, Professional Couriers, Domestic and International Courier and Cargo Shopping Centre, Bangalore Road, Challakere Town-577 522, Chitradurga.   (Rep by Sri. H.K. Vijayakumar, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OP to pay Rs.80,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, the complainant is the Assistant Master in Government Higher Primary School, Pitlali village, Hiriyur Taluk and the OP is the dealer of Professional Couriers.  It is further submitted that, on 18.09.2014 complainant sent the documents in sealed cover through OP Branch at Challakere addressed to Sri. G. Somanna, Superintendent, Establishment Section No.3, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore by paying Rs.20/- towards delivery charges.  OP has issued authenticated receipt to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, after taking the delivery, the OP has clearly assured that, it will reach the destination on the next day as generally letters sent reach the next day.  By believing the assurance given by the OP, complainant has kept silent and not enquired about whether the cover has reached its destination or not.  It is further submitted that, the said delivered cover consists of (i) letter addressed to the Superintendent, Establishment Section, Bangalore by explaining the denial of production of false medical certificate to get transfer of teachers during 2014-15 in the Teachers Transferring Councilling, (ii) Xerox copy of the appointment order of Primary School Teachers in Bellary District dated 04.04.2008, (iii) appointment letter after scrutinizing the documents issued by the appointing authority and Block Education Officer, Department of Public Instructions, Bellary, (iv) Letter pertains verification of original documents of the complainant, (v) certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board, District Hospital, Chitradurga, (vi) copy of disability certificate dated 24.03.2008, (vii) memo of transfer issued by the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Bangalore dated 08.07.2014 transferring the complainant from Talur, Sirguppa Taluk, Bellary District to Pitlali, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, (viii) Work satisfactory memo issued by the Block Education Officer, Siraguppa, Bellary District dated 21.06.2010.  It is further submitted that, the Deputy Director (Primary Education), Chitradurga vide their letter dated 31.12.2014 have issued official memo pertains to Suspension of complainant for the charges that production of fake medical certificate to get transfer from Talur, Sirguppa Taluk to Pitlali village, Hiriyur Taluk.  Afterwards as per the kind orders of Director, Primary Education, Bangalore dated 25.02.2015, the complainant has been reinstated and working as a Assistant Master, Government higher Primary School, Pitlali, Hiriyur Taluk. For these happenings, the complainant is facing under disciplinary proceedings.  The charges levelled against her has not been waived off.  The disciplinary proceedings is going on. At this juncture, the complainant by explaining all the real and true facts in her letter dated 18.09.2014 which relevant documents has sent the cover through OP by having faith and trust.  But, due to the grave negligence, dereliction of duties, deficiency in service, the courier services have not delivered the very important cover to its destination addressed to Bangalore.  It is further submitted that, while admitting the receipt of courier to reach its destination, the bounden duty of the OP is to deliver the same to the addressee.  It is subtted that, the letter/cover in question was sent by the complainant to her higher officers, Bangalore on payment of Rs.20/- as a service charges.  The OP intentionally with a malafide intention to harass, cause loss and to create inconvenience to its customers, the OP negligently, carelessly not delivered the cover and kept in their office.  On enquiry, the OP has given evasive and arrogant replies, which caused heavy loss which cannot be compensated by the OP.  The complainant issued a legal notice through her counsel on 18.05.2016 to OP, the same was served on the OP.  The OP neither replied the notice nor attempted to pay the damages as compensation amount.  The cause of action arose at Chitradurga which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum on 18.05.2016 when the OP received the legal notice and not complied the same.  Therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow his complaint with cost. 

3.      On service of notice, OP appeared through Sri. H.K. Vijayakumar, Advocate and filed version stating that, there is no cause of action to file this complaint and the same is not maintainable, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  It is further stated that, OP is not known that, the complainant is the Assistant Master in Government Higher Primary School, Pitlali, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District.  It is true that, on 18.09.2014, the complainant sent the document in sealed cover through Professional Courier Branch at Challakere addressed to Sri. G. Somanna, Superintendent, Establishment Section No.3, office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore and the complainant has paid Rs.20/-.  The allegations made in para No.4 of the complaint are denied as false.  The complainant is strict proof of the same.  The allegations made in para 5 of the complaint are not know by this OP.  The allegations made in para 6 of the complaint are not within the knowledge of this OP.  The allegations made in para 6 of the complaint are all false and created for filing of this complaint.   The complainant is strict proof of the same.  The allegations made in para 8 of the complaint are utterly false.  The allegations made in para 9 of the complaint are all false and untenable.  The allegations made in para 10 of the complaint are all false, concocted for the purpose of this complaint.  The allegations made in para 11 of the complaint are all false and liable to be dismissed in limine and there is no cause of action for this complaint. 

It is further submitted that the, the OP is running a Professional Courier Service Centre at Challakere, which is a reputed and famous courier service in all over India having its service.  It is further submitted that the complainant on 18.09.2014 came to OP’s office and sent one sealed cover to Sri. G. Somanna, Superintendent, Establishment Section No.3, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore.  By that time, the complainant has given her address but not given any mobile number.  It is further submitted that, the letter sent to the address mentioned on the cover for deliver to Bangalore.  Unfortunately, the same has been returned with a shara “No such Consignee”.  Immediately, the OP attempted to return back the consignment to the complainant but, service of the OP was not available in the place what the complainant has given her address and also due to non-availability of mobile number, the OP could not able to return that consignment to the complainant.  But as per the terms of the OP Company, proof of delivery can be made available on the request of the customer and such request should be made within 30 days from the dispatch of the consignment.  No claims will be accepted after the time limit. Such being the case, no such attempt was made by the complainant to ascertain the delivery of that cover to the address given by her.  Ultimately, the husband of the complainant came to OP and take back the sealed cover on 08.01.2015.  At that time also, he had not disclosed the fact of suspension of his wife.  After that, they kept quite for all these days and filed this case surprising to the OP.  The complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and the same is bad for non-joinder and mis-joindere of necessary parties.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 & A-2 were got marked. On behalf of OP, one Sri. P. Pradeepkumar, Manager, has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.B-1 to B-4 have been got marked.   

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that:

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OP has committed deficiency of service in not delivering the consignment to the addressee and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is the case of the complainant that, complainant is the Assistant Master in Government Higher Primary School, Pitlali village, Hiriyur Taluk. On 18.09.2014, complainant sent the documents in a sealed cover through OP Branch at Challakere, who is a courier service addressed to one Sri. G. Somanna, Superintendent, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore by paying Rs.20/- towards delivery charges.  OP has issued authenticated receipt to the complainant.  OP has clearly assured that, it will reach the destination on the next day, therefore, complainant has kept silent and not enquired about whether the cover has reached its destination or not, consisting of (i) letter addressed to the Superintendent, Establishment Section, Bangalore by explaining the denial of production of false medical certificate to get transfer of teachers during 2014-15 in the Teachers Transferring Councilling, (ii) Xerox copy of the appointment order of Primary School Teachers in Bellary District dated 04.04.2008, (iii) appointment letter after scrutinizing the documents issued by the appointing authority and Block Education Officer, Department of Public Instructions, Bellary, (iv) Letter pertains verification of original documents of the complainant, (v) certificate of disability issued by the Medical Board, District Hospital, Chitradurga, (vi) copy of disability certificate dated 24.03.2008, (vii) memo of transfer issued by the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Bangalore dated 08.07.2014 transferring the complainant from Talur, Sirguppa Taluk, Bellary District to Pitlali, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, (viii) Work satisfactory memo issued by the Block Education Officer, Siraguppa, Bellary District dated 21.06.2010.  The Deputy Director (Primary Education), Chitradurga vide their letter dated 31.12.2014 has issued official memo pertains to Suspension of complainant for the charges that production of fake medical certificate to get transfer from Talur, Sirguppa Taluk to Pitlali village, Hiriyur Taluk.  As per the kind orders of Director, Primary Education, Bangalore dated 25.02.2015, the complainant has been reinstated and she is working as an Assistant Master, Government higher Primary School, Pitlali, Hiriyur Taluk.  But, the complainant is facing under disciplinary proceedings and the charges levelled against her has not been waived off.  The disciplinary proceedings is going on. At this juncture, the complainant by explaining all the real and true facts in her letter dated 18.09.2014 with relevant documents sent the cover through OP having faith and trust.  But, the courier services has not delivered the very important cover to its destination addressed to Bangalore.  The bounden duty of the OP is to deliver the same to the addressee.  The letter/cover in question was sent by the complainant to her higher officers, Bangalore on payment of Rs.20/- as a service charges.  The OP with a malafide intention to harass/cause loss and to create inconvenience to its customers, the OP negligently, carelessly not delivered the cover and kept in their office.  On enquiry, the OP has given evasive and arrogant replies, which caused heavy loss which cannot be compensated by the OP. 

 9.     In support of her contention, the complainant has filed her affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like Original receipt dated 18.09.2014 issued by Professional Courier for having booked the consignment to one G. Somanna, Superintendent, Department of Public Instructions, Bangalore marked as Ex.A-1, Legal Notice dated 18.05.2016 marked as Ex.A-2.

Further, the advocate for complainant has relied on a decision reported in IV (2009) CPJ 271 in the case of Pavit Garg Vs. Blazeflash Couriers ltd., and Others wherein it has been held as under:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) – Courier Services – Delay in delivery – Application for selection in State Services sent by complainant through op 3 on 27.09.2006 – Last date for receipt of same 30.09.2006 – Letter reached concerned office on 4^th October, 2006 – Loss of employment opportunity suffered by complainant – Deficiency in services alleged – Complaint allowed – OP directed to pay Rs.100/- as compensation along with Rs.1,000/- as costs – Compensation inadequate – Hence appeal – Contention, as per terms mentioned on envelope liability of postal authority limited to Rs.100/- only – Contention rejected – Contents of courier receipt in very fine print, practically illegible – No signatures put by appellant on the giving consent to the terms of respondents – Admittedly letter delivered after 7 days – Delay not explained by respondents – Deficiency in services proved – Respondents directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% p.a – Order modified – Relief entitled.

Result: Appeal allowed. 

10.    On the other hand, it is argued by the OP that, on 18.09.2014 the complainant sent the document in sealed cover through Professional Courier Branch at Challakere addressed to Sri. G. Somanna, Superintendent, Establishment Section No.3, office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore and the complainant has paid Rs.20/-.  The allegations made in para No.4 to 11 are denied as false.  It is further argued that, OP is running a Professional Courier Service Centre at Challakere, which is a reputed and famous courier service in all over India having its service.  On 18.09.2014 complainant sent a sealed cover to Sri. G. Somanna, Superintendent, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore.  The complainant has given her address but not given any mobile number.  Unfortunately, the same has been returned with a shara “No such Consignee”.  Immediately, the OP attempted to return back the consignment to the complainant but, service of the OP was not available in the place what the complainant has given her address and also due to non-availability of mobile number, the OP could not able to return that consignment to the complainant.  But as per the terms of the OP Company, proof of delivery can be made available on the request of the customer and such request should be made within 30 days from the dispatch of the consignment.  Ultimately, the husband of the complainant came to OP and take back the sealed cover on 08.01.2015.  At that time also, he had not disclosed the fact of suspension of his wife.  After that, they kept quite for all these days and filed this case surprising to the OP.        

11.    In support of its contention, the OP has filed the affidavit evidence of its Manager and reiterated the contents of version and relied on the documents like Delivery run sheet dated 08.01.2015 marked as Ex.B-1,  courier Manifest dated 18.09.2014 marked as Ex.B-2, Consignment query details marked as Ex.B-3 and courier Manifest dated 24.09.2014 marked as Ex.A-4.

 12.   On hearing the rival contentions of both parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, on 18.09.2014, complainant sent the documents in a sealed cover through OP Branch, who is a Professional Courier service addressed to one Sri. G. Somanna, Superintendent, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore by paying Rs.20/- towards charges.  OP has issued authenticated receipt to the complainant.  OP has clearly assured that, it will reach the destination on the next day. In the said cover, the complainant by explaining all the real and true facts in her letter dated 18.09.2014 with relevant documents but, the courier services has not delivered the very important cover to its destination addressed to Bangalore.  The bounden duty of the OP is to deliver the same to the addressee.  The contention of the OP that, complainant has given her address but, not given any mobile number.  Unfortunately, the same has been returned with a shara “No such Consignee”.  Immediately, the OP attempted to return back the consignment to the complainant but, service of the OP was not available in the place what the complainant has given her address and also due to non-availability of mobile number, the OP could not able to return that consignment to the complainant.  The same is not admissible, because the complainant sent the sealed cover to the Superintendent, Department of Public Instructions, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore, which is a well-known address to the public and also to the Postal/Courier Authority.  Moreover, the address of the complainant is the Government Higher Primary School, which is nearby Hiriyur Town which can easily trace out.  But, the OP did not try to trace out the same.  Simply OP has taken a contention that, their service is not available to the address given by the complainant.  When once the OP accepted to deliver the consignment to the address given by the customer by taking necessary charges, its duty is to serve the consignment.  If failed to deliver the same, it should return the consignment to the sender’s address.  But, the OP never delivered the consignment to the addressee or returned to the sender.  So, in our considered view, we come to the conclusion that, the OP has committed a deficiency of service.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative.           

            13.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby allowed in part.

It is ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for not delivering the consignment to the addressee along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings.  

It is further ordered that, the OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 28/06/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. Sri. P. Pradeepkumar, Manager, Manager of OP by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Original receipt dated 18.09.2014 issued by Professional Courier
02	Ex-A-2:-	Legal Notice dated 18.05.2016

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Delivery run sheet dated 08.01.2015
02	Ex-B-2:-	Courier Manifest dated 18.09.2014
03	Ex-B-3:-	Consignment query details
04	Ex-B-4:-	Courier Manifest dated 24.09.2014

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**