KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:451/2003 JUDGMENT DATED.4..3..2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER M/S City Couriers Services, Domestic and International Couriers and Cargo, “Saubhagya” Jeevan Vikas Kendra, : APPELLANT Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 069. Repd. By its Partner Parwez Shaukath – Ali Merchant. (By Adv:M/S S.Pazhania Pillai & S.Pradeepkumar) V. Dr.Abraham Zachariah, Royal Hope Munltispeciality Centre, Cyber Centre, Kuravankonam Jn, Thiruvananthapuram. JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the 2nd opposite party in OP:62/02 in the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The opposite parties are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.26,000/- with future interest at 14.5% and also to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost. 2.It is the case of the complainant who is a Dental Surgeon that he had entrusted a medical equipment, Fiber optic hand piece Bella Tourque LUX2 turbine 645B made in Germany, the value of which is Rs.26,000/- with the opposite parties. The equipment was sent for repairs through the opposite parties couriers on 24..8..2001 but the parcel did not reach the addressee. Subsequently it was informed that the parcel is missing. Later in response to the lawyer notice the opposite parties sent a payment of Rs.1000/-. According to the opposite parties the above is the amount that is liable to be paid as per the agreement. The complainant has sought for the value of the equipment ie, Rs.26,000/-, compensation of Rs.2.5lakhs and Rs.3000/- as cost. It is his case that on account of the non availability of the particular equipment he sustained considerable loss as the equipment was required for treatment. 3.The opposite parties remained exparte. PW1 was examined and Exts.P1 to P11 marked. 4.It is proved from the evidence of PW1 and the documents produced that the value of the article is as alleged; as well as the fact of sending the same through the opposite party courier and also there is the admission that the parcel is missing. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the opposite parties before the Forum we find that there is absolutely no scope for interference. Nothing has been produced by the opposite parties/appellant to establish the alleged agreement. In the circumstances the order of the Forum is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER VL. | 
