Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

301/2011

K.Poongodi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Genius Attestation Servises & Other - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.E.Prabhu

03 May 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  18.05. 2011

                                                                        Date of Order :  03.05.2016.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.301/2011

TUESDAY THIS  3^RD  DAY OF MAY 2016

 

Mrs. K. Poongodi,

Rep. by her power agent,

Mrs. Porkodi Karnan,

Residing at No.4/165,

Kambar Street, E.B. Colony,

Iyyar Bungalow,

Madurai.                                                     ..Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

1.  Genius Attestation Services,

Rep. by its Manager,

Having office at No117/227,

Fathima Tower,

2^nd Floor,

Room-2, Triplicane High Road,

Chennai – 5. Tamil Nadu.

 

2. The Professional Couriers,

Rep. by its Manager,

TRN Centre,

Old No.108, New No.207, (B9, 10),

Triplicane High Road,

Triplicane, Chennai – 5.                             ..Opposite parties.  

 

 

For the Complainant                  :   M/s. E. Prabu & another     

For the Opposite party-1             :  M/s. S.Natarajan & another   

For the opposite party-2              : M/s. R.Sathyanarayanan       

 

        Complaint  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation for loss, deficiency of service and dereliction of duty and  cost of the complaint.

ORDER

THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II      

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

               The  complainant submit that  he had sent the original certificates offer M.Tech degrees and B.V.Sc., Degree certificates along with marriage certificate and Childs birth certificate to be attested by the U.A.E. Embassy to get the attestation within 28 days for which the complainant had paid Rs.24,000/- as service charges.    The opposite party’s husband who is working in Abudhabi desires to get a dependant visa and get employment to his spouse at Abudhabi, all the educational certificate are to be attested by the authority concerned for which the complainant had sought the assistance of 1^st opposite party.     The 1^st  opposite party has promised  to get the attestation within 28 days and the complainant was forced to approach the opposite party frequently where there was a lackadaisical attitude  was received from the opposite party.             On 2.6.2010 the  1^st opposite party  had  informed   the   complainant that her veterinary and   M.Tech degree certificates got attested and at the request of the complainant the  opposite  party  had  directed   and   send   the said   certificate   to   the   complainant’s   sister   address  at  Madurai which was dispatched through opposite party-2 on 3.6.2010.   Till 5.6.2010 the said certificates were not reached complainant’s sister house and she was frantically tried to contact opposite party-2 where she got  a lethargic, inept, evasive, callus response from the opposite party-2.   It was informed to the complainant on 10.6.2010 the courier sent to the complainant was lost.       It was reported by the opposite party-1 to the complainant on 22.6.2010 stating this certificates were lost confirming that the non-traceable certificate was obtained by the 2^nd opposite party form the inspector of police containing the “original certificates lost”.         In order to get the duplicate certificates the complainant has spent Rs.13,000/- and also to wait for six months to get the duplicate certificates from the authority concerned.   The opposite party miserably failed to get the original certificates which was received by them and returned the unattested certificates to the complainant and the complainant was put to lot of tension and monetary expenses to go to the institutions to get the duplicate certificates and because of their (opposite parties) negligence the complainant has to put in lot of hardship and mental agony.     As such the complainant sought for claim for a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- as compensation for loss, deficiency of service and dereliction of duty and   cost of the complaint.      Hence the complaint.

Written version 1^st  opposite party in briefly is as follows:

 

2.     The 1^st opposite party  denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    It is true that the complainant contacted the opposite party for attestation of documents.   The 1^st opposite party never assured specified time and days to get attestation done.  It is pertinent to point out that the opposite party never insisted or canvassed that attestation be done only through them within specified days, at any point of time.   The 1^st opposite party after completion of attestation formalities for only certain certificates namely M.Tech and Veterinary certificates through the concerned U.A.E. embassy, informed the complainant of the readiness of the same.   The complainant confirmed receipt of information given and insisted that she will collect all the documents on the whole.   The opposite party had clearly explained the cause and reason for the dealy if any in getting attestation for the marriage and birth certificates, by their respective offices.   The complainant agreed to the same informed the opposite party  to send the Marriage and Birth Certificates after due attestation.   Meanwhile she gave her mailing address insisted and instructed this opposite party to dispatch the certificates / documents after attestation  through Professional Courier, the 2^nd opposite party herein.   The 1^st opposite party gave the Non Traceable certificate given by police, the opposite party had done acts much beyond their responsibility and work, though the loss was not committed by the opposite party.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties.     Therefore this compliant deserve to be dismissed with costs.  

 

 

Written version 2^nd  opposite party in briefly is as follows:

3.     The 2^nd opposite party  denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The said consignment was promptly sent to the counter part of 2^nd opposite party at Madurai for delivering it to the consignee but unfortunately at Madurai the said consignment was lost in transit along with other two consignments on 5.6.2010 and the Madurai branch of 2^nd opposite party immediately lodged a complaint with C3, S.S. colony Police Station and the same is not traceable.     The 2^nd opposite party further submits that even though they took all the precautions and steps to ensure prompt delivery of all the consignments, there is always an element of risk in any transit.  Hence the consignor in this booking who is prudent business man should have sent it only under the cover of insurance after declaring the contents of it which would have given an opportunity to the 2^nd opposite party either to accept the booking after knowing the liability which he may have to bear in the event of loss or to refuse the consignment at the time of booking itself.  No such opportunity was given to the 2^nd opposite party in this case.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties and the compliant deserve to be dismissed with costs. 

4.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of Opposite parties   filed  and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the  opposite parties.    

5.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1)   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the  reliefs sought for?.

6.     POINTS 1 & 2 :

           Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10  were marked on the side of the complainant.  Written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties  and also considered the both side arguments.

6.     The complainant represented by her power agent (General power of attorney dated 7.7.2010) given in a non-judicial stamp paper under Ex.A10 authorizing the power agent to act on behalf of the complainant for all legal matters concerning this case.

7.     The complainant had sent the original certificates offer M.Tech degrees and B.V.Sc., Degree certificates along with marriage certificate under Childs birth certificate to be attested by the U.A.E. embassy to get the attestation within 28 days for which the complainant had paid Rs.24,000/- as service charges.   The opposite party had not disputed about the receipt of this consideration which was deposited by the complainant in their bank account.   The opposite party’s husband who is working in Abudhabi desires to get a dependant visa and get employment to his spouse at Abudhabi all the educational certificate are to be attested by the authority concerned for which the complainant had sought the assistance of 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st  opposite party was not able to get the attestation within 28 days as promised and the complainant was forced to approach the opposite party frequently where there was a lackadaisical attitude by the opposite party was received by the complainant.    On 2.6.2010 the 1^st opposite party had informed the complainant that her veterinary and M.Tech degree certificates got attested and at the request of the complainant the opposite party directed and send the said certificate to the complainant’s sister address at Madurai which was dispatched through opposite party-2 on 3.6.2010.     

8.     Till 5.6.2010 the said certificates were not reached complainant’s sister house and she was frantically tried to contact opposite party-2 where she got  a lethargic, inept, evasive, callus response from the opposite party-2.   It was informed to the complainant on 10.6.2010 the courier sent to the complainant was lost.   It was reported by the opposite party-1 to the complainant on 22.6.2010 stating this certificates were lost confirming that the “non-traceable certificate” from the police was obtained by the 2^nd opposite party  issued by the inspector of police, containing the original certificates lost.

9.     In order to get the duplicate certificates the complainant has spent Rs.13,000/- and also to wait for six months to get the duplicate certificates from the authority concerned.   The opposite party miserably failed to get the original certificates which was received by them and returned the unattested certificates to the complainant and the complainant was put to lot of tension and monetary expenses to go to the institution, to get the duplicate certificates and because of their negligence the complainant has to put in lot of hardship and mental agony for which she quantified an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- plus other expenses which she prayed Rs.10,000,000/- for compensation for deficiency of service and return of the amount.  Hence the complaint.

10.    The opposite parties contended and denied all the allegations in the averments in the complaint except those there are specifically admitted and did not disputed about the acceptance of consideration for his services, only after completion of this agreed services to get back the certificate duly attested by UAE embassy. And informed the complainant to receive the B.V.Sc. and M.Tech certificate and as such the complainant was in her sister’s house at Madurai and upon the receipt  of directives from the complainant, the opposite party-1 had dispatched the consignment through courier who is an opposite party-2 and after knowing the consignment was lost in order to help the complainant they got the non-traceable from the police authority and gave it to the complainant and said no way has got liability for loss of consignment and agreed to refund the consideration Rs.24,000/- received by him along with return of marriage and birth certificate given to opposite party-1 without attestation.    The opposite party had stated the allegations made against him is blatant and as such the opposite party-1 requested the forum to dismiss the complaint.

11.    The opposite party-2 admit the fact that the consignment was booked through opposite party-1 on 3.6.2010 without declaring the contents, its value and also without any instruction to insure the consignment and received the consideration as service charges Rs.25,000/-only.    And it was confirmed by the opposite party-2 there are two consignment found to be lost on 5.6.2010.   and they immediately lodged the police complaint and in turn  the police authority gave a non traceable certificate on 11.6.2000 which was reported to the opposite party vide letter dated 19.6.2010 under Ex.B1.     On receipt of  the legal notice from the complainant  dt.21.1.2011 under Ex.A10 and the 2^nd opposite party was not aware what was the content that was dispatched in the said consignment.     Though the 2^nd opposite party has taken all precautionary measure to deliver the consignment, it has been lost unexpectedly if the opposite party-1 had declared the valuable items which were being dispatched in the courier where they could have taken extraordinary precaution and when booked through courier.   Since the opposite party failed to inform the valuable documents kept and the consignment to be dispatched and the knowledge of what was inside the cover were not known to the opposite party and they will not beheld responsible for the loss of valuable document which was undeclared by the opposite party-1. Hence they are not liable for the loss of valuable certificates and they pleaded to dismiss the complaint and pass order.

12.    Pursuant on the complaint, the proof affidavit, written version and the documents filed by the both parties to the dispute, we judiciously observed having received the consideration of Rs.24,000/- the opposite party had not done the services promised to the complainant though he has got attestation form the UAE for two certificates i.e. B.V.sc certificate and M.Tech certificate and promised to deliver to the complainant which had not reached the complainant till date.  It was action taken by the opposite party-1 to send the valuable document by courier and informing the complainant it was lost that too the original certificates of her future employment and life was tarnished and created huge mental agony resulting in lot of jolts and greater aspirations.  The dereliction of duty of the opposite party-1 had put greater hardship to the complainant and promising to return back the other certificates unattested and refunding the service charges shows the lethargic attitude of the opposite party.  we judiciously feel the act of the opposite party-1 created lot of chaos and turmoil in the carrier of the complainant.   Hence it is directed the opposite party-1 to repay the consideration what was received Rs.24,000/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- with an interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint. i.e. 18.5.2011. The compensation Rs.10,00,000/- sought by the complainant seems to be exorbitant which could not be accepted by this forum.  Hence the compensation Rs.20,000/- is accorded.   It is also directed the opposite party-1 to pay the litigation charges of Rs.4,000/- and the opposite party-2 having received the consideration of Rs.25/- and it has been notified the opposite party-1 failed to furnish  what contents of kept inside the cover to be delivered to the complainant and the value thereon and if it is valuable consignment no instruction were given to the opposite party-2 where they could have taken the precautionary measure in dispatching the said consignment the failure of the non instruction of the opposite party-1, the opposite party-2 contended their liability is restricted to Rs.100/- only which was noted in the face of the POD given to the opposite party-1. 

        The carriage by Road Act 2007 under the definitions

“common carrier” means a person engaged in the business of collecting,  storing, forwarding or distributing goods to be carried by goods carriage under a goods receipt are transporting for hire of goods from place to place by motorized transport on road, for all persons undiscriminatingly and includes a goods booking company,  contractor, agent, broker and courier  agency engaged in the door-to-door transportation of documents,  goods or articles utilizing the services of a person either directly or indirectly to carry or accompany such documents, goods or articles but does not include the Government.

Under section 12 of the said act the liability of the common carrier under Sec.10 for total loss shall be limited to 10 times  the freight paid or payable.    Sec. 12 (4) the Liability for loss the document sent along with  consignment  order shall be not exceeding rupees five hundred.

13.    Hence we direct the opposite party-2  to pay Rs.100/- for the loss of document booked by their courier and litigation charges Rs.1000/- to be borne and be payable to the complainant from the date of filing this complaint.

        In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party-1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.24,000/- (Rupees twenty four thousand only) with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from  18.5.2011 to till date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) towards litigation charges and the  opposite party-2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred only) and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order, failing which the above said amounts (Rs.20,000/-, Rs.100/)  will also carry interest at the rate of  9% p.a. from the date of this order  to till the date of payment.    

            Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the    3^rd    day of  May    2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1 – 7.4.2010  - Copy of courier registration receipt.

Ex.A2-  15.4.2010 - Copy of Bank Challan.

Ex.A3-  3.6.2010   - Copy of Consignment receipt.

Ex.A4- 11.6.2010  - Copy of Non-traceable certificate.

Ex.A5- 17.6.2010 - Copy of letter from 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A6- 22.6.2010  - Copy of letter from 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A7- 15.11.2010         - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A8- 21.1.2011  - Copy of reply notice from 1^st opposite party. 

Ex.A9-   21.1.2011         - Copy of reply notice from 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A10- 23.7.2010         - Copy  of General power of attorney given by the

                             complainant. 

 

Opposite party’s side  documents:

 

Ex.B1- 19.6.2010  - Copy of letter by the 1^st opposite party to the

                             2^nd opposite party.

 

 

                                                                                                             

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.