Date of filing: 18.12.2018
Date of disposal : 28.11.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L., ....MEMBER-II
RBT/CC. No.67/2022
THIS MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022
(CC.No.50/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)
Mr. P.P.Manimoli,
L-100, 2nd Main Road,
West Kamaraj Nagar,
Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.K.P.N.Speed parcel service Limited,
Rep. by its Manager,
23B, Rajaji Street,
Swarnapuri, Salem – 636 004.
2.K.P.N.Speed parcel service Limited,
Rep. by its Manager,
217B, Chidambaram Divide Road,
Cuddalore Road,Virudhachalam.
3.K.P.N.Speed parcel service Limited,
Rep. by its Manager,
960/2, Moovendar Street, Velachery Road,
Hot Bakes Backside, Medavakkam.
4.K.P.N.Speed parcel service Limited,
Rep. by its Manager,
No.22/23, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai -600 107. .......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.K.Sivasubramanian, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : Ms.R.Dhanalakshmi, Advocate.
This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.50/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.67/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.11.2022 in the presence of M/s.K.Sivasubramanian Advocate, counsel for the complainant and Ms.R.Dhanalakshmi, Advocate counsel for oppostie parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both parties, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in not delivering the consignment booked by the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards misplacement of parcel and to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards mental agony caused by the opposite parties.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he was running a wholesale millets business in the name and style of ‘Aero food products in Chennai’. He got an order from one Mr.K.Veerapandiyan from Chennai for Iddiyappam flour and millets for his daughter who was leaving to America on 22.08.2018 and also as a sample for exporting the flour and millets. On 08.08.2018 the complainant booked his products i.e. 45 to 50kg of flour and millets through KPN speed service parcel from Virudhachalam to Medavakkam and the consignment LR number assigned by the opposite parties was VCM 341002233. Further he had sent the parcel through speed parcel and not through normal parcel service, as it had to reach his customer within one or two days. The 2nd opposite party assured that the parcel would reach its destination within two days. But as assured by the 2nd opposite party the complainant’s customer did not receive the parcel on 20.08.2018. Since complainant’s customer did not receive the parcel even on 21.08.2018 the complainant called the 2nd opposite party and enquired and he replied that he had sent the parcel and asked to enquire with the 3rd opposite party. It was further submitted that he called upon his customer Mr.Veerapandiyan and asked him to enquire the 3rd opposite party. On enquiry the complainant’s customer was informed by the 3rd opposite party that he had not received the parcel. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties dragged the complainant and the complainant’s customer from one place to another to track the parcel. The complainant submits that even when complainant checked online tracking, it showed as ‘tracking not available to your courier’. Since complainant’s customer did not receive the parcel before 22.08.2018 resulting in a loss for the complainant which was worth more than Rs.10,000/- and since the products were also meant to be a sample for exporting the products, he lost valuable business opportunity. After making repeated calls he got vexed up and called the 1st opposite party and lodged a complaint for which they assured that he will trace the parcel and get back within a day but did not get back. If the goods were misplaced, it is the duty of the opposite parties to tack the parcel and deliver it but the opposite parties had not taken any steps to trace the parcel. Thus complainant suffered a lot both physically and mentally and also there was monetary loss to him. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards misplacement of parcel and to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards mental agony caused by the opposite parties.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-
The opposite parties filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter alia that the complainant was not a consumer as the complaint filed by the complainant “Aero Food Products itself would prove that the complainant was not a consumer. There was no evidence produced by the complainant that he had sent 45 to 50 kg flour and millets. It was denied by them that the complainant’s customer one Mr.Veerapandiyan enquired was highly concocted statement and without any basis. The opposite parties immediately initiated the investigation proceedings about the parcel and it could not trace the same. It was denied that the 1st opposite party assured that he will trace the parcel and get back within a day and vehemently denied that the opposite parties did not get back and when the complainant called again. The complainant wrongly filed this complaint without any territorial jurisdiction because the person booked the consignment from Virudhachalam under “to pay” to be delivered at Medavakkam, Chennai which are not under this commission’s jurisdiction and thus sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A4. On the side of opposite parties proof affidavit was filed but no document was filed.
Points for consideration:
Whether the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not delivering the consignment booked by the complainant has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Bill issued by the opposite party dated 18.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;
Complaint sent by the complainant through E-mail to the 1st opposite party dated 31.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;
Notice sent by the complainant dated 18.09.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;
Reply notice sent by the opposite parties dated 25.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A4;
The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that the parcel booked by the complainant was never delivered to the customer to whom it is addressed to. Further though several complaints were made to the opposite parties they did not take any effort to trace out the parcel and to deliver the same. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the parcel contains Iddiyappam flour and millets for value of more than Rs.10,000/-. Further for the defence raised by the opposite parties that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not at all a consumer, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant stated that he was doing business only in a small scale and hence he is a consumer within the definition of the act. Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed.
On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties stated that there is no proof that the parcel contains Iddiyappam flour and millets. Further they searched immediately on the complaint made by the complainant however could not trace out the consignment. The value of the parcel was disputed and the learned counsel for the opposite parties sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
Maintainability of complaint:-
The preliminary objection by the opposite parties is that the complainant is not a consumer and has no local standi to file the consumer complaint. It is submitted by them that as the complainant had mentioned that he was carrying on business in the name of AERO FOOD PRODUCTS and having godown at Virudhachalam, the complainant is doing business on large scale and hence the complainant is not a consumer. However, no documents were produced by the opposite parties to show that the complainant was carrying on business on a large scale and was having a huge turn over.
However, on perusal of pleadings we could see that the complainant was carrying on business on a small scale dealing with flours and millets. It is also not the case of the opposite parties that the complainant was having any manufacturing unit nor employing persons. Thus we could safely hold that the complainant was running the business in a small scale to earn his livelihood by means of self employment and thus comes very well within the exemption clause under Sec 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Thus we hold that the complaint was very well maintainable before this commission. The question of jurisdiction could also be answered that the opposite parties was having their office at Medawakkam at Chennai which comes very well within the territorial jurisdiction of the commission.
The only available defence on the side of the opposite parties is that they searched for the parcel but could not trace the same. When the factum of booking the parcel for a consideration is not disputed and when it is admitted that the parcel is not delivered to the consignor, we could safely arrive at a conclusion that the opposite parties being transporters/parcel service carrying on business of transporting goods for consideration had committed clear deficiency in service in not delivering the parcel to the consignee. The defence that they searched but could not trace out the parcel is not acceptable as the opposite parties has a duty to deliver the parcel safely to the consignee booked with them for consideration. Thus we answer the point holding that the opposite parties had failed to deliver the parcel and also failed to trace out when it was lost and they had committed clear deficiency in service. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite parties.
Point No.2:
As we have held above that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service the complainant should be compensated adequately. The complainant had mentioned that the parcel contains goods worth more than Rs.10,000/-. However no proof was submitted by the complainant in proof the same. In Ex.A1 the value of consignment was left blank. In such circumstance we award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- comprehensively for non delivery of goods by the opposite parties and for the mental agony and hardship suffered by complainant. We also award Rs.5,000/- as cost towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severely directed
a) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards loss of goods and compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 18.08.2018 Bill issued by the opposite parties. Xerox
Ex.A2 31.08.2018 Complaint sent through email to 1st opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A3 19.09.2018 Notice sent by the complaianant. Xerox
Ex.A4 25.10.2018 Reply notice sent by the opposit parties. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
