BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 443/2002 Dated : 31.12.2009 Complainant: P. Ravindran, Priya Gardens, Kunnathur East P.O, Kollam-690540. Opposite party: The Branch Manager, TSS Services (Courier), T.C 26/2238, Ever Green, Statue Road, Thiruvananthapuram-33.
(By adv. G.K. Namboothiry)
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. This O.P having been taken as heard on 02.12.2009, the Forum on 31.12.2009 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant entrusted a cover through T.S.S Services on 08.01.2002 to send to his daughter who was studying in Alleppey. But the addressee received the cover only on 15.01.2002 without contents which included a valuable document and some money. The cover has been handed over to postal authorities by the opposite party. Aggrieved by this the complainant had registered a complaint against the opposite party. But no reply has been received. Hence this complaint. The opposite party Branch Manager, T.S.S Services filed their version contending the entire allegations. The opposite party stated that there has been no deficiency in service from their side because the service undertaken has been fulfilled completely by delivering the cover entrusted to the addressee. The opposite party further stated that the area was not serviceable, considering the urgency they have sent the cover by speed post and it was delivered to the addressee. It was sent by speed post after obtaining consent by telephoning the complainant. The opposite party further stated that the complainant did not disclose the contents of the cover at the time of booking. If the complainant had disclosed the fact that the cover contains money, no courier service will accept the cover for service. According to the opposite party, sending money through courier service is against the provisions of the Indian Postal Act. Hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant sent the cover through the opposite party on 08.01.2002 to his daughter who was studying at Alleppey. But the addressee received the empty cover only, on 15.01.2002. The complainant states that the cover contained money and a valuable document. To prove his contentions he has filed proof affidavit and produced the copy of booking receipt dated 08.01.2002. The main contention of the opposite party is that if the opposite party was aware of the content of the cover they would not have accepted the cover. It is not permissible to send money through courier service. The complainant did not disclose the content of the cover to the opposite party at the time of booking. And the opposite party stated that they delivered the cover to the addressee. Hence there is no deficient service from their side on that matter. To prove their contentions opposite party filed affidavit and produced 2 documents. Ext. D1 is the booking receipt and Ext. D2 is the speed post receipt through which they sent the cover through speed post. It is an admitted fact that money should not be sent through courier service. The complainant himself was well aware of this fact. At the time of cross examination he answered the question of opposite party that “School Principal ആയ നിങ്ങള്ക്ക് courier വഴി രൂപ അയയ്ക്കാന് പാടില്ല എന്നറിഞ്ഞു കൂടേ? എന്റെ emergency അതായിരുന്നു എന്നെ അങ്ങനെ ചെയ്യിപ്പിച്ചത്.” Hence the complainant has no right to claim compensation for that illegal act. In this case there is some delay occurred to deliver the cover to the addressee. The complainant had sent the cover from Thiruvananthapuram to Alleppey on 08.01.2002. The addressee received the cover only on 15.01.2002, i.e; there is 7 days delay to get the parcel. The distance between Thiruvananthapuram and Alleppey is not a very far distance. Hence the opposite party is liable to compensate their deficient service for the delay caused in delivering the parcel. Hence complaint is partly allowed. In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 9% annual interest shall be paid for the entire amount till the date of realisation. 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. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of December 2009.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 443/2002 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - P. Raveendran II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Photocopy of booking receipt dated 08.01.2002. P2 - Photocopy of postal certificate.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Photocopy of booking receipt dated 08.01.2002.
D2 - Photocopy of speed post receipt dated 10.01.2002.
PRESIDENT
| 
