DATE OF FILING : 22.12.2009.

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 26th day of April, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.241/2009

Between

Complainant : Jomon George,

Muthukattu House,

Kulapparachal,

Rajakumari,

Idukki - 685619

(By Adv: Joymon)

And

Opposite Party : The Director,

Mithra Driving School,

Rajakumari South P.O.,

Idukki - 685619

The Director,

Speed and Safe Courier Service Ltd.,

Kochi – 682035,

Ernakulam District.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
 

The complainant booked a parcel containing mobile phone worth Rs.15,000/- manufactured by Samsung company through the opposite party courier service in the name and style, “Speed and Safe Courier Service Ltd.”, to his sister's friend at Maharashtra. The addressee was Seema Gurbhele, C/o Vijay Tupkar, Nava Nakasha, Near wangheri Decareation Kamachwok, Nagpur 440021 Maharashtra. The opposite party received an amount of Rs.60/- as charge for the same on 21.1.2009 and receipt was given as bill No.1118304621. But the same was not delivered to the addressee after two months. So the complainant approached the opposite party and made a complaint there. But the opposite party told that the courier was duly served to the addressee on 21.1.2009 itself. Again several times the complainant contacted to the opposite party, but there was no result for the same. The opposite party told that they are conducting an investigation about the matter, but nothing was received from the opposite party till date. The mobile phone was purchased from abroad by the sister of the complainant. So the petition is filed against deficiency in service of the opposite party and also for getting the cost of the mobile phone as Rs.15,000/-.
 

2. 1^st opposite party filed a written version and submitted that the complainant is not a consumer for the opposite party. The complainant booked a parcel without disclosing that the parcel contained mobile phone worth Rs.15,000/-. In fact, the complainant sent the parcel as some accessories of phone. It was not permissible to sent electronic goods and valuable things through courier service. As per the carries Act, the carrier is not liable to pay compensation for loss unless the person delivering the same declare that the value. In this case the complainant did not disclose the value. The complainant entrusted with an unnotified parcel for delivering the same at Seema Gurbhele at Nagpur. On 21.1.2009, the opposite party entrusted the same with the agent at Rajakkadu and from their, it was sent to Ernakulam. The details of the courier received on 21.1.2009 are entered on the account book. The parcel was delivered at Nagpur and the acknowledgement card is produced. Since the parcel was delivered to the addressee the opposite party is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant. And hence the complaint may be dismissed.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. There is no oral evidence adduced by both the parties. The complainant filed a chief affidavit and Ext.P1 marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.R1 marked on the side of the opposite party.
 

5. The POINT :- The complaint is filed for getting compensation for the non-delivery of the parcel sent by the complainant through the opposite party courier service. The courier was booked at the 1^st opposite party's office to the addressee who is the sister's friend of the complainant named Seema Gurbhele, C/o Vijay Tupkar, Nava Nakasha, Near wangheri Decareation Kamachwok, Nagpur 440021, Maharashtra. Even after 2 months the parcel was not received at the same address. Ext.P1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party for booking the parcel. The complainant filed several complaints at the opposite party's office about the non-delivery of the parcel at the address. It was a mobile phone worth Rs.15,000/- and was given by the sister of the complainant who is working abroad. The opposite party submitted that the courier was duly served at the address and the acknowledgement receipt of the delivery of the parcel is marked as Ext.R1. The complainant never disclosed that the parcel contained mobile phone and value of the article was not disposed by the complainant at the time of booking the parcel. It is not permissible to sent electronic goods and valuable things through courier service.

The opposite party contented that they have delivered the parcel to the addressee and the acknowledgement for the same is produced as Ext.R1. Ext.R1 is a duplicate copy of Ext.P1 which is sent along with the parcel and returned after the due acknowledgement. A signature is affixed in the column for receiver's signature in Ext.R1. But no date is mentioned for the receipt of the good, no name of the receiver also written in column for the same. The address given by the complainant was “Seema Gurbhele C/o Vijay Tupkar, Nava Nakasha, Near wangheri Decareation Kamachwok, Nagpur 440021, Maharashtra. It means that the said Seema Gurbhele is having only a care of address of one 'Vijay Tupkar' in Maharashtra state. As per the opposite party, the parcel was received by somebody in that care of address and they are not liable for the same. As per the complainant, the parcel was not received by his sister's friend at Nagpur even after two months and he complained several times to the opposite party for the same. The parcel was a mobile phone supplied by his sister who is working abroad and it costs Rs.15,000/-. But the complainant never produced any bill showing the cost of the mobile phone and even never produced any evidence to show that the parcel booked was mobile phone. The opposite party submitted that at the time of booking the parcel the complainant delivered that the parcel was only some electronic parts of a mobile phone and the value of the material was not disclosed to them.

As per Law of Carriage, the Carriers Act, 1865, about the liability of a carrier, Section 3 deals with the liability for such property.
 

“3. Carriers not to be liable for loss of certain goods above one hundred rupees in value unless delivered as such.-- No common carrier shall be liable for the loss of or damage to property delivered to him to be carried exceeding in value one hundred rupees and of the description contained in the schedule to this Act, unless the person delivering such property to be carried, or some person duly authorised in that behalf, shall have expressly declared to such carrier or his agent the value and description thereof.”
 

Here the complainant never disclosed the matter that the mobile phone was booked as a parcel to the addressee. The value of the article is also not delivered to the opposite party. Even the bill or anything produced to show that it was a mobile phone and the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.15,000/- as cost of the same. Hence there is no deficiency is proved against the opposite party.
 

Hence the petition dismissed. No cost is ordered against the complainant.
 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of April, 2010.
 

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)
 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The receipt issued by the opposite party's office for booking the parcel.

On the side of the Opposite party :

Ext.R1 - The acknowledgement receipt of the delivery of the parcel which is the duplicate copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant.