Date of filing :- 04/01/2012
Date of Order :- 27/05/2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 02 of 2012.
Kamdev Behera, aged 42 (forty two) years, son of late Sashi Bhera, resident of and P.o. Talsrigida, Ps. Bargarh, Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
- V e r s u s -
Fly King Courier Service, At- Masjid Road, Infront of Bharat Gas, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
Fly King Courier Service, 10 Station Square, Bhubaneswar, Dist. Khurdha.
.... .... .... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant:- Sri. S.P. Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one) :- Sri. M.K. Satpathy, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt. 27/05/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Miss. Rajlaxmi Pattnayak, President.
The case of the Complainant is that he sent a letter containing Admit card of his son through flyking courier service, Bargarh, the Opposite Party No.1(one) with destination Bhubaneswar on Dt.03/12/2011 having consignment No.56255 and paid an amount of Rs.10/-(Rupees ten )only to wards courier charges. The consignment is stated to have contained the Admit card of his son Bijaya Kumar Behera who was at Bhubaneswar and scheduled to appeared the combined Higher Secondary Level Examination-2011 on Dt.11/12/2011 from 2 PM to 4 PM at Saraswati Bidya Mandir, Fakir Mohan Nagar, BBSR, Baramunda Housing Colony, Bhubaneswar with the said Admit card. The consignment did not reach the addressee at Bhubaneswar for which the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.1(one) who assured the Complainant to inquire about the matter. Till date the addressee not received the letter sent by the Complainant. Due to non delivery of the consignment Complainants son could not able to sit in the examination on the scheduled date. Since the letter containing Admit card sent through courier was lost his son suffered a great loss in his carrier. The Complainant attributes such action of Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He prays for direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only towards mental agony, harassment arising out of the mis deed of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant filed the documents in support of his case which are attached to the case record.
Notices were duly served upon the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party No.2(two) has not contested in the proceeding from the beginning and has been set ex-parte. Opposite Party No.1(one) appeared and filed his version. While admitting that the Complainant has placed a letter before him Opposite Party No.1(one) to cause courier to one Bijaya Kumar Behera at BBSR has denied after other allegations leveled against him. In his version he has submitted that he is a franchise of flyking courier and its head office is situated at Kolkatta and its regional office is at Bhubaneswar. He has duly despatched the consignment and the same has been duly received at Bhubaneswar branch and the letter has been duly delivered to the addressee on Dt.05/12/2011 on proper and particular address. Since the Opposite Party No.1(one) has done all efforts within his reach to solve the cause of the problem, this Opposite Party No.1(one) can not be held responsible for any deficiency in service. So the petition filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed with cost.
In support of his case the Opposite Party No.1(one) filed documents which are attached to the case record.
Heard the argument and perused the record.
The copy of the acknowledgment receipt towards receipt by the flyking courier service Bargarh, the Opposite Party No.1 submitted by Complainant as well as Opposite Party No.1(one) reveals that on Dt.03/12/2011, the consignment was booked addressed to Bijaya Kumar Behera at Bhubaneswar by Kamdev Behera, the Complainant at Bargarh in shape of an envelope for which Rs.10/-(Rupees ten)only was paid in cash as charges.
Copy of delivery voucher Dt.05/12/2011 bearing No.95215 submitted by Opposite Party No.1(one) confirming delivery of the consignment bearing No.56255 to Opposite Party No.2(two) at Bhubaneswar. Copy of the Admit card filed by the Complainant disclosed that the consignment contained Admit card of Bijaya Kumar Behera the son of the Complainant to appeared for the combined Higher secondary level examination 2011 at Saraswati Vidya Mandir. Fakir Mohan Nagar, Bhubaneswar. It has been relied upon by the counsel on behalf of the Complainant in the petition and also during course of pleading that the consignment contained Admit card of the Complainant's son. The Opposite Party No.1(one) has denied such contention of the Complainant in the written version. Even though the Complainant could not produce any material evidence about the content of the consignment we by all reasons accept the submission to that effect that the consignment contained Admit card. From the above documents it is cleared that the consignment delivered to Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.05/12/2011. But now the question arises that whether the consignment delivered to the Addressee ? This question could not be answered in the absence of the Opposite Party No.2 in the proceeding. Hence in the absence of the presence of the Opposite Party No.2 during the proceeding given weightage to the version of the Complainant. There is also no documentary evidence to show that the courier has been delivered to the addressee. The Opposite Party No.1(one) submitted before the forum that the document i.e. Copy of delivery voucher Dt.05/12/2011 bearing No.95215 showing delivery of the consignment to the Opposite Party No.2(two) and also to the addressee is a misleading one. The courier does not deliver the letter unless or until the addressee sign the same. There is no clear cut proof of service of letter to the addressee. There should be signature on the receipt in lieu of delivery of letter to the addressee. In the instant case through the Opposite Party No.1 delivered the consignment to the Opposite Party No.2(two) and submitted in his favour that his responsibility is over but it is also his duty and responsibility to see whether the letter duly delivered to the addressee or not beacause the consignment was booked by their by the Complainant with some hope that it is reach duly reach addressee. Evidently missing of the consignment and non-reaching to the addressee amounts to deficiency in service by both the Opposite Parties and both the Opposite Parties are liable to pay compensation, what the student suffered in a state of mental agony for non appearing in the examination.
In the result the Complaint allowed and order as follows:-
O R D E R
The Opposite Parties are directed jointly and severally to pay service fee of Rs.10/-(Rupees ten)only and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only as compensation towards mental agony, harassment and litigation cost to the Complainant within thirty days from the date of order, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry 12% (twelve percent) per annum till the date of realization.
Complaint case disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
( Smt. Anjali Behera ) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
