COMPLAINT FILED ON: 15.02.2011

DISPOSED ON: 17.10.2011

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

17^th OCTOBER 2011

       PRESENT:- SRI.B.S.REDDY                      PRESIDENT           

                         SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA     MEMBER

                         SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA                MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 265/2011

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA, MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986, seeking direction to the Opposite Party No.2   (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.10,000/- being the cost of the  Apple Ipod nano 8 GB on the allegations of  deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

2.      The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows.

          On 01-12-2010 complainant booked a consignment bearing No.F-4253832 from Main Branch of First flight couriers at Marathahalli Bridge, Bangalore to be delivered at LUDHIYANA.  The contents of consignment was  Apple Ipod nano 8 GB blue colour sealed worth of Rs.9,200/-.  Complainant purchased the said ipod on 30^th November 2010 from M/s. Staples, Garuda Mall, Magrath Road, Garuda mall, Bangalore-25.  The said consignment was brought to the notice of Manager of the Division namely Mr.Venkatesh before packing.  Complainant enquired with said Manager regarding delivery of the said consignment. Manager assured the complainant that he will keep track of consignment there is no possibility of it getting lost and same is mentioned on the Courier receipt “ as per Venkatesh”.  After the assurance of the Manager.  Complainant wraped the contents in the presence of the Manager only.  The security guard by name Satish was present and helped the complainant in packing the consignment. Complainant  came to know that on delivery of the consignment the content was replaced with a cheap quality F M Player.  Immediately complainant brought the said fact to the notice of O.P.  The Manager, Venkatesh provided the complainant, the Customer  relationship Manager, Gayathri’s Telephone No. and informed to  drop an E-mail to the Customer Relationship Manager regarding the said issue.  Complainant provided the snaps of tampered consignment and helped the customer relationship Manager to carry out the investigation.  After exchanging few E-Mails the customer relationship Manager  Mr.Venkatesh stopped responding to the calls of the complainant. Inspite of repeated requests there was no response.  Hence complainant felt deficiency in service against O.P..  Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint against OP for the necessary reliefs.

2.      On appearance OP 2  filed the version mainly contending that complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, vexatious and illegal.  The dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute and does not fall within the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.   Complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the parties.  Second O.P. is a Company registered under  the Companies Act.  O.p. Company is having good reputation with their customers.  On 1/12/2010 complainant booked one consignment bearing No.F44253832 addressed to Ludhiyana contending  that the contents of the consignment was MPC player and he has not declared the value of the Consignment as per the terms agreed by O.P.,  O.P. Company has delivered the consignment to the consignee as mentioned in the consignment. After service of consignment the complainant has registered  a complaint with O.P. Company intimating that MP-3 player sent by the complainant has changed in the parcel and it was delivered to the consignee. In this regard O.P. registered the complaint and after enquiry O.P.  came to know that consignment was delivered to the consignee with no remarks.  O.P. Company has also sent the scanned copy of the runsheet to show that consignment was delivered.  Copy of the email sent to the complainant is produced as document No.1.   Complainant has filed this complaint against O.P. Company with an intention to make ill-legal gain.  On the basis  of consignment  receipt issued by O.P. Company and also to harass the O.P. There is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Among other grounds OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.      To substantiate the complaint averments, complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced copy of the complaint dated      7-12\2010, copies of the emails, copy of the courier receipt, copy of the invoice dated 30-11-2010,  Complainant got filed witness affidavit of Neha.  Who is a consignee of the parcel. On behalf of OP  Diwakar.S., D.G.M. of O.P.2 filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version.  O.P. has produced one copy of the email dated: 14-10-2010.  O.P. filed written arguments. Heard oral argument from complainant side and taken as heard from O.P. side.

4.      In view of the above said facts, the points now that arises for our consideration in this complaint is as under:

      Point No.1:-   Whether the complainant

   proved the deficiency in service

    on the part of the OP ?

Point No.2:-   If so, whether the complainant is

                     entitled for the relief now claimed?

       Point No.3:-  To what Order?

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:

Point No.1:- In Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.

Point No.3:- As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

6.      At the out set it is not in dispute that complainant on 1/12/2010 booked a consignment containing an apple Ipod nano 8 GB through O.P.1. to be delivered at LUDHIYANA.  We have perused the consignor receipt dated:1/12/2010 issued by O.P.1.  It is also not in dispute that the said Apple Ipod nano 8 GB is worth of Rs.9,200/- To substantiate this fact complainant has produced the copy of the Invoice dated 30/11/2010 issued by M/s Staples Garuda Mall, Magrath road, Garuda Mall, Bangalore-25.  Before packing the consignment complainant enquired with the Manager, Mr.Venkatesh. O.P.2, about the safe delivery of the consignment only.  Upon the assurance that they keep track of the consignment and no possibility of being lost, same is  mentioned.  On the receipt “as per Venkatesh”.  Complainant wrapped the content in the presence of O.P.2.  The security guard present in O.P.1 helped the complainant in packing the consignment.  On delivery complainant came to know that the contents of the consignment were replaced with a cheap quality F.M.player. In support of this fact complainant got filed the witness affidavit of one Neha of Barnala, Ludhiyana, the consignee who sworn to the fact that the consignment received by her on 4/12/2010 was a F.M. player not an Apple Ipod nano 8 GB.  The parcel was opened prior to deliver into the consignee. Immediately complainant brought the said fact to the knowledge of O.P.2, Manager.  On advise complainant sent email to the customer relationship Manager, Gayathri, and sent the snaps of the tampered consignment.  After exchange of few emails there was no reply from the customer relationship Manager.  Hence complainant approached this forum for the necessary relief.

8.      As against the case of the complainant the defence of the O.P. is that consignor has not declared the value of the content.  O.P. has delivered the content to the consignee.  After service of consignment.  O.P. received the complaint from the complainant.  On enquired O.P. came to know that parcel was delivered to the consignee without any remarks.  There is no merit in the contention of the O.P. that the parcel has delivered to the consignee with no remarks.  Unless parcel is opened consignee is enable to know the contents contained in the parcel.  If parcel contents were in fact, there was no reason for the complainant to approach this Forum and to file complainant claiming reliefs.  The consignee has sworn to the fact that the parcel delivered was not opened in front of the courier person.  Hence no remarks were given O.P. has failed to conduct necessary enquiry and not produced any report before this Forum.  She was happy enough to receive the present.  After opening the parcel she realized that it was opened prior to and parcel was replaced with a cheap F M player in the place of Apple Ipod nano 8 GB.  Hence we are unable to accept the contention of O.P. that parcel is delivered to the consignee without any remarks.  The concerned person who delivered the parcel has not filed any affidavit denying the fact that the parcel was opened prior to and repacked before it being deliver it to the complainant. 

9.      We have perused the affidavit evidence and the documents produced by the complainant on 7/12/2010.  Complainant has made the complainant through email to customer relation officer of O.P., Gayathri and enquired on 10/12/2010, 13/12/2010, 14/12/2010, 22/12/2010. But O.P. failed to respond properly.  OP having collected Rs.90/- towards service charges cannot escape from liability.  There is a duty cost upon the courier personnel to deliver the consignment to the consignee in its original form without replacing or causing any damage to the consignment.  Since the parcel was packed in the presence of courier personnel (O.Ps), the irresistible conclusion that can be drown is some courier personnel/staff have removed the Apple Ipod nano 8GB from the consignment and replaced with cheaper chained MP-3 player production of runsheet to show the consignment was delivered to the complainant is not sufficient to hold that the content of the parcel is not removed or replaced.  Inspite of receipt of complainant from the complainant.  O.Ps. have failed to conduct proper enquiry and fix the responsibility.  On their employees who handled this parcel and solve the grievances of the complainant.  The act of O.P. in not delivering couriered parcel intact without replacing it with to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

          The complainant has produced the bill dated 30/11/2010 for having purchased the new Apple ipod nano 8 GB from M/s Staple Garuda Mall, Magrath road, Bangalore-25.  As per the said bill cost of the said Apple ipod is Rs.9,200/-.  O.Ps. are liable to pay the said amount towards the value of the Apple ipod to the complainant.

9.      In a similar case reported in III CPJ 300 Sub-Postmaster, Head office, ILkal Vs Vital.  The Hon’ble State Commission, confirmed the order of the District Forum allowing the complainant directing O.Ps. to pay the cost of 12 sarees which were removed from the parcel and compensation of Rs.5000/-.  In the said case out of 22 sarees of the parcel sent through the postal department 12 sarees were missing.  Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that O.Ps. are liable to pay the value of the Apple Ipod and litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.

Accordingly we proceed to pass the following

O R D E R

The Complainant filed by the complaint is allowed in part.   The OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,200/- being the value of the Apple Ipod nano 8 GB and pay  litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.

        This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date communication of this order.

Send the copy of this order both the parties free of cost.

(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 17^th  day of October 2011.)

MEMBER                        MEMBER                PRESIDENT