Kerala

Trissur

CC/08/58

Ratnakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.P.A.Muraleeraj,A.Devadas

04 Jun 2010

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUMAyyanthole , Thrissur
Complaint Case No. CC/08/58
1. RatnakumarHouse,Kuthambully,ThiruvilwamalaThrissurKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus.
1. DTDCRep by Branch Manager Lalitha,DTDC,ThiruvilwamalaThrissurKerala2. DTDC rep by Dist.Manager KishoreCTM Complex,Kokkala,ThrissurTrissurKerala ...........Respondent(s)



BEFORE:
HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh ,PRESIDENTHONORABLE Rajani P.S. ,MemberHONORABLE Sasidharan M.S ,Member
PRESENT :Adv.P.A.Muraleeraj,A.Devadas, Advocate for Complainant

Dated : 04 Jun 2010
JUDGEMENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

 
By Smt. Rajani.P.S, Member:
 
 
          The complainant’s case is as follows: The complainant earns his livelihood by weaving and selling of cloths. On 25.10.2007 the complainant sent some clothing worth Rs.20,000/- through the first respondent courier service to Smt. Savithri.V. Nair, G.7/8, Prime Rose Soicy, Spaghetty Complex, Sector-15, Kharger, Navi Mumbai. The said clothing is having 11 kg. weight and the respondent charged Rs.751/- as the service charge. The respondent assured to deliver the courier to the addressee within 7 days. But the said things did not receive by the above said addressee. The complainant entrusted the clothing to the respondent based on the advertisement made by
 
the respondents that they are giving better service and deliver the things without any defects. The complainant enquired with both the respondents but both of them said one or other reasons to escape from their responsibilities. The said acts of the respondents amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
 
          2. The respondents are called absent and declared exparte.
 
          3. To prove his case, the complainant filed an affidavit and the document produced by him is marked as Ext. P1.
 
          4. According to the complainant, he sent some clothing having 11 kg. weight of worth Rs.20,000/- through the respondents to Smt. Savithri.V. Nair in Navi Mumbai. He had given Rs.751/- as the courier charge to the respondents. The respondents assured to deliver the items within 7 days to the said addressee. But the items not reached the destination. There is no counter evidence.
 
          5. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as the cost of the clothing with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 25.10.07 till realization along with costs Rs.750/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
 
 

           Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 4th day of June 2010.


[HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member