BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 18/03/2014
Date of Order : 31/05/2014
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
C.C. No. 209/2014
Between
Sreedev. S., | :: | Complainant |
'Suresh Bhavan', Kizhakkekara, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam. | | (By Adv. Enoch David Simon Joel, Floor D, Lipids House, Plot G-285, Main Avenue, Panampilly Nagar, Cochin – 36.) |
And
DTDC Couriers, | :: | Opposite Party |
XIV 768, Kandooth Buildings, Near Bank of India, Velloorkunnam, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam – 686 661, Rep. by its Manager. | | (Absent) |
O R D E R
V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
1. The facts leading to this complaint are as follows :-
A courier addressed to the complainant with Postal Docket No. 13744260 was sent from Guruvayoor by M/s. Guruvayoor Photo Studio through the opposite party couriers to the complainant on 15-03-2014 and on 18-03-2014, the opposite party intimated the complainant that a courier addressed to the complainant was received by the opposite party and insisted the complainant to take delivery of the same from the office of the opposite party, which is hardly 3 Kms. away from the residence of the complainant. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party is not entitled to direct the complainant to take delivery of the consignment from their office and that the act of the opposite party in directing the complainant to take delivery of the consignment from the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to be compensated for the deficiency in service and for the hardship and inconvenience caused to the complainant and therefore, this complaint is filed before this Forum seeking direction against the opposite party couriers to deliver the courier addressed to the complainant at the address shown with consignment note and to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and for the inconvenience caused to the complainant along with costs of the proceedings.
2. In spite of the notice sent from this Forum, the opposite party opted to remain absent. In fact, the opposite party refused to accept the notice on invalid grounds. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 was marked on the side of the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant was heard.
3. The only issue to be decided in the case is whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite party for not delivering the consignment in the address in the consignment note or not?
4. In the instant case, a courier addressed to the complainant was sent by M/s. Guruvayoor Photo Studio, Guruvayoor through the opposite party couriers. But the said consignment was not served on the complaint in the address shown in the consignment note. Instead, the opposite party on 18-03-2014 intimated the complainant that a courier has been received at the office of the opposite party and directed the complainant to collect the consignment from their office. According to the complainant, he is entitled to get the consignment in the address in the consignment note and the above act of the opposite party amounted to clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. We find that the complainant is legally entitled to get the consignment at the address shown in the consignment order and the opposite party is legally bound to deliver the consignment at the address stated in the consignment order. This Forum directed the opposite party to deliver the consignment to the complainant at the address shown in the consignment order vide order in I.A. No. 256/2014 dated 18-03-2014. It is submitted by the complainant before this Forum that evenafter getting the above order, the opposite party was impudent enough to return the consignment to the consignor namely M/s. Guruvayoor Photo Studio. However, it is seen that the consignment was delivered to the complainant only on 05-04-2014 even when the consignment was received early on 18-04-2014 and the address of the complainant is within 3 Kms. from their office. The delay occurred only due to the arrogant and impudent attitude of the opposite party. We find that the act of the opposite party in directing the complainant to collect the consignment from the office of the opposite party when the consignment order required the opposite party to deliver the consignment at the address shown in the consignment note, amounted to gross deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Had the opposite party served the Postal Docket No. R 13744260 at the address shown in the consignment note properly, this complaint would not have arisen. The opposite party failed to do its legal duty to deliver the Postal Docket at the address shown in the consignment order, for which the opposite party is liable to pay compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and also for the inconvenience caused due to the undue delay in delivering the consignment at the address shown in the consignment order. We fix the compensation at Rs. 10,000/-, which is inclusive of the costs of the proceedings.
5. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct that the opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/- (rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to the complainant and towards costs.
The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2014.
Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.
Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Forwarded/By order,
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | Courier cover |
Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil
=========
