COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 24th JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2593/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri. Mukesh,<br /> S/o. Anandi Lal,<br /> Aged about 34 years,<br /> Mezzo Fashions, <br /> F-4, 1st Floor,<br /> 1st Floor, Bajaj Complex,<br /> 5th Main Road,<br /> Gandhi Nagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 009.<br /> <br /> Advocate (Praveen Hegde)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Blue Dart Express Limited,<br /> Connection Point Building,<br /> Airport Exit Road,<br /> Konena Agrahara,<br /> Bangalore – 560 017.<br /> Represented by its Manager.<br /> <br /> Advocate (S.K. Nagaraj)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP with regard to sending of a docket containing railway tickets so as to travel from Ajmer to Bangalore. The said tickets were handed over to OP at Bangalore so as to deliver them at Ajmer. OP collected Rs.225/- towards the service charges and promised that the said consignment will reach the addressee or on before 04.06.2008. Complainant and his family members are expected to travel from Ajmer to Bangalore on 06.06.2008. Though complainant waited patiently for 2 days or more the said consignment was not at all delivered to him in time. On repeated insistence and demand OP came up with a lame excuse that the said docket was forwarded to Karim Nagar in Andhra Pradesh instead of delivering it to Rajendra Prasad Vesnov of Ajmer. Under such circumstances complainant was forced to purchase the separate tickets and travel in an ordinary compartment than that of the reserved one. It is all because of the carelessness and negligence of the OP. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the said consignment was handed over to them on 02.06.2008 at about 03.58 p.m., no such special instructions were given to treat the said consignment on top priority or it having contained a railway ticket for a journey on 06.06.2008. With all diligence OP delivered the said shipment on 07.06.2008. After hearing from the complainant OP with all fairness and bonafides agreed to pay Rs.5,000/- compensation, but complainant is not agreeable for the same. The consignment note clearly speaks to the liability of the OP only to the extent of Rs.5,000/-. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The other allegations made in the complaint are all false and frivolous. The claim of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is highly exorbitant. There is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the one Devraj had booked a shipment with OP on 02.06.2008 at 3.58 p.m. and entrusted railway tickets to be delivered to Rajendra Prasad Vesnov of Ajmer. OP accepted the said consignment and collected the necessary service charges Rs.225/-. The airway bill is produced. According to the complainant he was in Ajmer and he was expected to travel from Ajmer to Bangalore along with his family on 06.06.2008, that is why he requested Mr. Devaraj to send the reserved tickets to him through courier service of OP. Complainant is the beneficiary. Though complainant waited patiently he could not get the ticket well in time. OP promised to deliver the said docket within 48 hours of entrustment, but it failed to discharge its obligation. As admitted by OP the said consignment was delivered on 07.06.2008 that is nearly after 5-6 days and that too after the date of journey from Ajmer to Bangalore by the complainant. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. OP fairly admits that as per the contents of the air way bill their liability is only to the extent of Rs.5,000/- in case of loss of consignment, delay in deliver, damage, destruction, etc., and they offered Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, but he refused to accept the same. According to OP in the airway bill itself it is mentioned that the consignment entrusted to it is at owners risk. The person who took the said consignment is not examined, hence complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. We do not find force in the defence of the OP in that regard. When OP fairly admits that they did delivered the said consignment on 07.06.2008 though it is expected to be delivered within 2 days from 02.06.2008. It is a classic example of carelessness, negligence and deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. When the complainant failed to receive his reserved ticket in time he was forced to purchase fresh tickets without reservation and travel in an ordinary compartment. Under such circumstances he must have naturally suffered both mental agony and financial loss. According to the complainant he suffered a monetary loss to the extent of Rs.4,069/-. We have taken into consideration all these facts and circumstances. When his repeated requests and demands even by causing the legal notice to compensate him, went in futile naturally he must have been put to lot of inconvenience. In our view the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br /> <br /> <br />