COMPLAINT FILED: 31.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 24th DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2339/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT S.N. Subramanya,<br /> Senior Citizen,<br /> 118 “Lakshmikrupa”<br /> 5th Main Road,<br /> I.T.I Layout,<br /> Bensontown,<br /> Bangalore – 560 046.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Managing Director/<br /> Manager,<br /> Sri. Basavaraj <br /> cell No. 9448516599,<br /> Eagle Courier Services,<br /> No.5, 5th Cross,<br /> Kalasipalya New Extension,<br /> Bangalore – 560 002.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.6,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant was expecting certain important documents sent by Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation through OP the courier service on 22.09.2008. OP accepted the said docket bearing No. 3489/1, but unfortunately it was not delivered right up to 25.09.2008. Due to this inordinate delay in delivery of the said docket containing the important documents, complainant is unable to furnish the said document to the State Information Commission. Due to the carelessness and negligence of the OP, complainant is put to greater hardship and prejudice. The requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to compensate him, went in futile. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP their delivery man had took the said consignment to the address of the complainant on 23rd and 24th of September, but the door was locked, hence it was not delivered. Ultimately it is delivered on 25th September. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Hence OP is not liable to pay the compensation. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the one consignment was entrusted to the OP the courier service for the delivery to the complainant the beneficiary by Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation on 22.09.2008. According to the complainant it bears the docket No. 3489/1. Complainant expected the delivery of the said consignment on 22.09.2008, but unfortunately for more than 3 days it was not delivered. The said docket was containing important documents which are to be produced before the State Information Commission. Because of the delay in delivery of the said docket complainant is put to greater hardship and prejudice. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that the docket entrusted to them was taken for delivery to the complainant’s house on 23rd and 24th September 2008 by the delivery boy. But on both the days the door was locked, that is why they are unable to deliver the said docket. To substantiate the said defence OP has produced delivery run sheet. Who is that delivery man, who took the said docket and noticed door lock is not known. His affidavit is not filed to substantiate the said defence. According to the complainant the consignment that was entrusted to OP was bearing docket No. 3489/1, but whereas the delivery run sheet produced by the OP speaks to the docket No. 3483. Under such circumstances no such importance can be given to the said delivery run sheet. Complainant has produced the Xerox copy of the cover which contains the docket No. 3489/1 and it is delivered to him on 25.09.2008 at 6.30 p.m. though it is entrusted to OP on 22.09.2008. One delivery man Girish has signed the said cover. The endorsement and the contents of the said cover are not denied by the OP.<br /> <br /> 8. Under such circumstances we find the non-examination of the delivery man as well as the person who endorsed on the docket is fatal to the defence set out by the OP. Complainant is residing in Bangalore, the consignment is sent by the Karnataka State Co-operative Marketing Federation situated at Bangalore. The non-delivery of the said docket for 3 days without any substantial reason or cause definitely amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both monetary loss and mental agony. Of course the claim of compensation of Rs.6,000/- appears to be exorbitant. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case, the justice will be met directing the OP to pay a token compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.250/-. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.500/- and litigation cost of Rs.250/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />