BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

                                                             Dated this the 22^nd September 2010           

PRESENT

                                                      SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :   PRESIDENT                

   SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI       :   MEMBER

   SRI. ARUN KUMAR.K         :   MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.24/2010

(Admitted on 23.1.2010)

BETWEEN:

Sri.Shashikantha Shetty Karkal,

So Dharnappa Shetty,

Aged 29 years,

Residing near Kalikambla Temple,

Neklaje, Karkala,

Udupi District.                                            …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for Complainant: Sri. Shridhara Shetty Pulincha)

          VERSUS

Franch Express Network Pvt. Ltd.,

Having its Branch Office at No.3,

1^sFloor, Mysore Commercial Complex,

Attavar, Mangalore 575 001.

Represented by its Manager Sri.K.Raja.       ….. OPPOSITE PARTY  

(Advocate for Opposite Party: Sri.K.P.A. Shukoor)

ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service as against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs. 

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant had filed the present Complaint seeking recovery of Rs.12,500/- being the cost of the Digital Camera and damages to the tune of Rs.20,000/- and such other reliefs as against the Opposite Party.  It is the case of the Complainant that,  on 10.10.009 one Sri.K.K.Babu has dispatched the parcel containing valuable items through Opposite Party to the Complainant.  The said parcel was dispatched from Calicut, (Kerala State) to Mangalore Via Bangalore.  It is submitted that, the said parcel contained C.D., charger, Computer Data Cable, G.B. Card, Warranty Card, Manual Book (4 in numbers), Battery and Dsc-W 210 black colour Digital camera with cover.   The said parcel weighed 720 gms in Calicut and 720 gms in Bangalore.  However, when the parcel was delivered to the Complainant it was weighed only 500 gms.

It is stated that, when the Complainant opened the said pack the parcel did not contain Digital Camera.  When the Complainant enquired the same with K.K.Babu, he informed the Complainant that the parcel contained Digital Camera along with other articles and weight was 720 gms.  It is stated that, immediately Complainant contacted the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party inturn assured to the Complainant that they will take necessary steps to trace the missing article but not handed over the article till today.  Hence, the Complainant constrained to issue a legal notice dated:27.10.2009 called upon the Opposite Party to make good loss to the Complainant.  The Opposite Party received the notice but not complied the same.  Hence, it is contended that the Opposite Party is guilty of Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency of service.  Therefore, the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to reimburse the cost of DSC-W 210 black colour Digital Camera Rs.12,500/- along with interest at 18% per annum and also claimed compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version and denied the entire allegations and submitted that, the Opposite Party has not taken any booking of parcel on 10.10.2009 from Calicut, (Kerala State) to Mangalore via Bangalore addressed to the Complainant.  It is denied that, one Mr.K.K.Babu has dispatched parcel containing several valuable items through Opposite Party on 10.10.2009.  It is also denied that, the addressor had informed the Complainant that the parcel contained C.D. Charger, Computer Data cable, G.B. Card, Warranty card, Manual book (4 in number) Batter and Dsc-W210 black colour Digital cameral with cover and weighing 720 grams and the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party and questioned about the missing of the Digital Camera etc. etc.  This Opposite Party denied all other allegations alleged in the complaint and stated that there is no deficiency of service whatsoever and prayed for dismissal of the Complaint. 

 3.      In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

1. Whether the Complainant proves that Opposite Party committed deficiency in service?
2. If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
3. What order?

4.       In support of the complaint, Sri Shashikanth Shetty Karkal (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him and Ex C1 to C5 were produced for the Complainant as listed in the annexure.  One Mr.K.Raja, Manager of Opposite Party filed counter affidavit (RW-1) answered the interrogatories served on him.  Ex R1 and R2 were produced by the Opposite Party as listed in the annexure.  Both the Parties filed written notes of arguments.

          We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon’ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:      

          Point No.(i): Negative.

          Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

5.  POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):

In the instant case, the Complainant came up with a Complaint stating that, one K.K.Babu has dispatched the parcel contained Digital Camera through Opposite Party on 10.10.2009 and the said parcel was dispatched from Calicut (Kerala State) to Mangalore via Bangalore.  The above said parcel contained C.D., Charger, Computer Data Cable, G.B. Card, Warranty Card, Manual Book (4 in numbers), Battery and Dsc-W 210 black colour Digital Camera with cover.  The said parcel weighed 720 gms in Calicut and 720 gms in Bangalore and the parcel was delivered to the Complainant it was weighed only 500 gms and did not contain Digital Camera.  When Complainant enquired K.K.Babu, he confirmed the Complainant that the parcel contained Digital Camera with other articles as stated supra.  But when he received the above said parcel, the Digital Camera was missing from the parcel.   

On the contrary, the Opposite Party denied the entire allegations alleged in the complaint and specifically contended that, the Opposite Party has not taken any booking of parcel from Mr.K.K.Babu on 10.10.2009 from Calicut (Kerala State) to Mangalore via Bangalore addressed to the Complainant and denied the entire allegations alleged in the complaint.

The Complainant has filed his affidavit in lieu of oral evidence and produced Ex.C1 to C5. Opposite Party also filed evidence affidavit and produced Ex R1 to R2.

Now the point for consideration in this case is that, whether the Complainant justified by saying that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service.  The Complainant categorically stated in his affidavit that, one Mr.K.K.Babu  has dispatched the parcel contained several valuable items which includes C.D., charger, Computer Data Cable, G.B. Card, Warranty Card, Manual Book (4 in numbers), Battery and Dsc-W 210 black colour Digital camera with cover and also stated that Mr.K.K.Babu has dispatched the parcel through the Opposite Party, the said parcel dispatched from Calicut to Mangalore via Bangalore addressed to the Complainant weighed 720 grams in Calicut.  However, the parcel was delivered to Complainant it weighed only 500 grams, the Digital Camera was missing/taken away from the parcel.  When that being the case, the entire burden lies upon the Complainant to shown before the FORA that K.K.Babu had dispatched the parcel which contain the above stated valuable items and also the same was weighing 720 grams. 

The Complainant except producing Ex C1 to C5 i.e.,  Memory Card of the Camera set, copy of the bill issued by French Courier Kottayam i.e. Fax Copy, warranty card in respect of the Digital Camera, booklets of Digital Camera and Compact Disc nothing has been placed on record to show that Mr.K.K.Babu sent the above said parcel which contained the C.D., charger, Computer Data Cable, G.B. Card, Warranty Card, Manual Book (4 in numbers), Battery and Dsc-W 210 black colour Digital camera with cover and the same was weighed 720 grams. 

On the contrary, the Opposite Party produced original booking details dated 10.10.2009 from Calicut hub to Mangalore hub in bound details i.e.Ex.R1/Doc.No.1.  The said documents discloses that, there is no such booking at Calicut office as contended by the Complainant.  The Opposite Party also produced the proforma booking receipt which is being issued by the Opposite Party to the customers.  But in the instant case, the Complainant failed to produce any booking receipt issuing by the Opposite Party to show that one Mr.K.K.Babu had booked the parcel which contained the above said valuables from the Calicut Branch of the Opposite Party on 10.10.2009.   The Fax copy of the bill issued by Franch Courier Kottayam i.e. Ex. C2 and written argument, the counsel appearing for the Complainant stated that Mr.K.K.Babu had dispatched the parcel from Kottayam, (Kerala State) through Franch Courier and receivable at Mangalore.  The Complainant has not taken any consistent stand whether the alleged Mr.K.K. Babu had booked the parcel from Calicut or Kottayam of Kerala State.  It directs the Complainant to produce the booking receipt issued by the Opposite Party and other documents.  But the Complainant failed to produce relevant document in order to substantiate his case. Mr.K.K. Babu who is the sender of the parcel is the best person to speak the subject matter in issue evidencing that, where he had booked the parcel.  The Complainant had failed to produce the booking receipts/bills/cash memos, evidencing the sale-purchase of the above goods by the sender.  If those documents are produced before this Forum we would have passed appropriate order.  In the instant case, the Complainant failed to produce relevant documents which are connected to the above case.  Hence, in view of the above reasons, we find no force in this complaint deserves to be dismissed. No order as to the cost.

6.       In the result, we pass the following:                                  

ORDER

          The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 22^nd day of September 2010.)

[PRESIDENT

       MEMBER                                                           MEMBER

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Sri Shashikanth Shetty Karkal – Complainant.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1: Memory card of the Camera Set.

Ex C2: Copy of the bill issued by Franch Couriers

          Kottayam (Fax Copy)

Ex C3: Warranty Card in respect of the Digital Camera.

Ex C4: Book lets of Digital Camera.

Ex C5: Compact Disk.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

RW-1 : Mr.K.Raja, Manager of Opposite Party.

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Ex R1: 10.10.2009: Original Booking Details from Calicut Hub to Mangalore Hub in Bound Details.

Ex R2: 2009 NCJ 249 (NC) Citation.

Dated:22-09-2010                                                     PRESIDENT