By Sri. K. Mohammed Ali, President,
Facts in brief
1. The complainant's case in brief is that the opposite party No.3 dispatched a consignment ie a Gift voucher of Rs.5,000/of M/s Sodexo to complainant vide AWB No.44323889853 on 20-09-2011 through Blue Dart Courier ie opposite party No.1 and 2. The consignment is not delivered yet tot he complainant so far causing much financial loss and mental agony. Hence this complaint.
2. The opposite party No.1 and 2, in their version and in the reply notice, admitted that the shipment has been delivered tot he complainant vide Airway Bill No.13283558326 without any protest. So no deficiency.
3. The main points that arises for our consideration are
(i) Whether the opposite parties are deficient in service by the non-delivery to the complainant.
(ii) Relief if any
4. Point (i) & (ii)
Both parties filed affidavits in support of their claims. The complainant, produced and marked the Ext.A1 to A4, which includes the copy of the lawyer notice, reply notice issued by opposite parties, Letter issued by opposite party No.3 to complainant, disclosing the content of the consignment and Delivery sheet of the opposite parties. The Ext.A4 Delivery sheet reveals that it is not delivered to the complainant and the signature shown in the Remark “column” belongs to somebody else.
5. The complainant was cross examined in length as PW1 but nothing was elicited. The opposite party No.2 was also examined as DW1 who deposed that “മണി E എന്ന പരാതിക്കാരന് ഞങ്ങള് Delivery ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല ഞാന് ബോധിപ്പിച്ച പേര്സണല് consignment-ലുള്ള അഡ്രസ്സില് Bharath Petroleum Corportion, Nilambur എന്ന Address-ലാണ് consignment, Delivery ചെയ്തിരുന്നത് എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുള്ളത് ശരിയാണ്. Ext.A4(Delivery Sheet)-ലെ രണ്ടാമത്തെ കോളത്തില് consignee-യുടെ കോളത്തില് മണി E എന്നെഴുതിയിട്ടുണ്ട്. Ext.A4-ല് delivery sheet-ല് Bharath Petroleum Corporation Nilambur എന്ന പേരില്ല ഒപ്പിട്ടിട്ടുള്ളത് മണി E എന്ന പരാതിക്കാരനല്ല”.
6. The Hon'ble National Commission has clearly held that the duty of a Courier is just like the duty of an insurer. If any article is entrusted with them, it should be delivered tot he party safely and without any damages.
7. Here the complainant lost the gift voucher for Rs.5,000/- due to the negligence of opposite party No.1 and 2 causing much mental agony. So the opposite party No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant and they are deficient in service.
8. In the result, we order that both opposite party No.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally pay the amount of the Gift Voucher ie Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) and the cost of this proceedings, Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five thousand only) being in total Rs.15,000/-(Rupees Fifteen thousand only) within one month of the receipt of the copy of this order.
Dated this 22nd day of June, 2015.
K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Manikandan, complainant
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A4
Ext.A1 : Registered Post A/D Lawyer Notice dated, 11-05-2012 by complainant's counsel.
Ext.A2 : Reply notice dated, 31-05-2012 by first opposite party.
Ext.A3 : Reply notice dated, 12-10-2012 by third opposite party.
Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the Delivery Sheet of Blur Dart dated, 26-09-2011.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1
DW1 : Binulal.V.P 2nd opposite party.
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
K. MOHAMMED ALI, PRESIDENT
R. K. MADANAVALLY, MEMBER
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
