BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. : MEMBE

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P.No. 415/2003 Filed on 17/10/2003

Dated : 30..09..2010

Complainant:

T.B. Jayaprakash, K.P.X/145A, “Anagha”, NCC Road, Ambalamukku, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 005.

(By Adv. M. Nizamudeen)

Opposite parties:

1. Depot-in-Charge, DTDC Couriers, No.10 Main Road, Near Canara Bank, New Town, Yelhenka, Bangalore – 64.

    

2. Depot-in-Charge, DTDC Couriers, S.S Kovil Road, Near Axis College, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram.

   (By Adv.P.G. Manoj)

This O.P having been heard on 30..04..2009, the Forum on 30..09..2010 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The allegations in the complaint are as follows: The complainant had entrusted one cover containing 2 tickets to be sent to his friend at Thiruvananthapuram solely believing the assurance and promise by the 1^st opposite party that the cover would be delivered promptly. But to the utter shock and surprise of the complainant the aforesaid cover has not been delivered by the opposite party until this day. The bus tickets which were enclosed in the aforesaid cover were to be used for the journey of the complainant's friends from Bangalore to Puttapurthy. Due to the non delivery of the aforesaid cover by the opposite parties, the complainant suffered severe mental agony and pain as the persons for whom the tickets were issued were forced to travel as standing passengers from Bangalore to Puttapurthy on 28/6/2003 due to the non-possession of valid bus tickets which was occasioned solely due to the non-delivery of the same by the opposite parties as promised by them. The non-delivery of the cover caused much hardships to the friends of the complainant and embarassments and mental agony to the complainant. The non-delivery of the aforesaid cover after receiving a consideration of RS.35/- from the complainant amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint has been necessitated.

2. The notice issued to the 1^st opposite party has been returned 'refused' and hence 1^st opposite party remains ex-parte.

3. The 2^nd opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The petition is not maintainable either under law or on facts. The 2^nd opposite party had received a cover from the 1^st opposite party addressed to Shri. Sidhardhan Nair, T.C.20/1114, Market Road, Kuravankonam, Kowdiar – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram on 24/6/2003 and the same was served to the party on the following day itself. The complainant has not mentioned about the contents in the Booking Form. Now the claim of the complainant that two bus tickets was in the cover is with malafide intention. It is submitted that without mentioning the contents in Booking Form, the 2^nd opposite party has no liability on the further claim about the contents. Since the article was promptly served to the addressee by the 2^nd opposite party, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. There is no cause of action for the complaint. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4. The points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint.

Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P4. PW1 has not been cross examined. Opposite parties had no evidence.

5. Points (i) & (ii): The Courier Consignment Note which has been marked as Ext. P1 evidences that the complainant had sent one consignment as averred in the complaint to one Sidhardhan Nair, Thiruvananthapuram. The contents are not declared as per Ext. P1. The Courier consignment note has not been signed by the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party has contended that the consignment has been served to the party on the following day itself. But inspite of the above said contention the 2^nd opposite party has not produced any documents or adduced any evidence to prove the same. No receipt showing the acceptance of the consignment has been produced by the opposite parties. In the absence of the above, it is evident that the cover has not been delivered to the addressee.

6. As per Ext. P1, the liability for any loss or damage to the shipment has been limited to Rs.100/- only. There is no evidence on the part of the opposite parties to prove that the terms and conditions printed in Ext. P1 were brought to the notice of the complainant at the time when the consignment was booked. Furthermore, the complainant has not signed in Ext. P1 and hence the complainant is not bound by the terms mentioned thereto. In the above circumstance, we find that there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties since the cover was not delivered to the consignee. In Ext. P2 the complainant had mentioned that the cover contained 2 tickets. Furthermore the complainant has also sworn that the cover contained 2 tickets. Since the complainant has not been cross examined his sworn statement stands unchallenged and uncontroverted.

7. There is no doubt that there is failure on the part of the opposite parties to deliver the consignment and that the loss of cover was due to deficiency in service on their part arising from negligence. In the above circumstance, we find that the opposite parties are liable to refund Rs. 35/- the amount collected by the opposite parties. There is no evidence as to the cost of the tickets. But the fact remains that there is deficiency in service by the courier and for which we grant Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.800/- towards costs of the proceedings.

In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall refund Rs.2,835/- (Rs.35 + 2000 + 800/-) to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order.

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 30^th day September, 2010.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad.

O.P.No. 415/2003

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : T.B. Jayaprakash

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of receipt dated 23/6/2003 issued by DTDC Courier, Yelhenka

P2 : Copy of letter dated 21/7/2003 issued by the complainant to the opposite party.

P3 : Copy of postal receipt dated 22/7/2003

P4 : Copy of acknowledgement card.

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

IV. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT