Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

126/2010

Mohamed Yusuf - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.T.Chellaswami Lakshmi Quick Parcel Service - Opp.Party(s)

S.N.A.Hussainy

02 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 04.03.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 02.01.2019

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

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

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.126/2010

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 02^ND DAY OF JANUARY 2019

Mohamed Yusuf,

S/o. Mr. Mohamed Sulthan,

No.1, Audiappa Nathan Street,

Mannady,

Chennai – 600 001.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                 

 

                                                                                                ..Versus..

 

K.T. Chellaswami,

Lakshmi Quick Parcel Service,

(Lakshmi Travels),

No.6A, Gandhi Irwin Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.                                                   ..  Opposite party.

          

Counsel for complainant      :  M/s. S.N.A. Hussainy & another

Counsel for opposite party  :  M/s. I. Periaswamy & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.2,04,525/- towards compensation for hardship, anxiety, mental agony and financial loss with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant booked two separate cotton boxes of goods addressed to Ahamad Ali and Ahmad Shah of Tirunelveli vide receipt No.2626 and 2627 dated:04.10.2009.   Out of  the two boxes, one contained imported cell phones to the tune of Rs.1,02,425/- booked under receipt No.2627 dated:04.10.2009.  For that, a sum of Rs.100/- was charged towards freight.  The complainant submits that the opposite party carrying such business of parcel service in the name and style of Lakshmi Quick Parcel Service delivered the parcel under receipt No.2626 properly and not delivered the parcel under receipt No.2627.  Even after repeated requests and verification by the opposite party, the cotton box has not been delivered.  The complainant submits that the undelivered cotton box contained imported cellphones to the tune of Rs.1,02,425/-. The complainant submits that due police  complaint has been lodged before the Inspector of Police, F2 Egmore Police Station, Chennai and the same was received under CSR No.100/F2/X/CSR 2009 which was ended in vain.   Hence, a legal notice dated:08.12.2009 was issued by the complainant’s Counsel for which, the opposite party sent a reply but not come forward to settle the demands of the complainant.   Hence, this complainant is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. The opposite party states that the allegation that one of the cotton box contained imported cellphones to the value of Rs.1,02,425/- is utter false since the complainant has not disclosed the details of the contents in the cotton box consignment and its value, weight, nature of articles.   Immediately, after the report from the complainant regarding non delivery, the opposite party enquired about the cotton box and found untraceable.  The police also after due investigation, reported that it is not traceable.  The opposite party states that the complainant has brought two cotton boxes having old clothes.  Hence, each charged Rs.100/- alone.    Since the goods are lost in transit against whom it was delivered for transit has lodged a complaint.  All diligent steps were taken to trace the missing parcels.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as he handed over the goods to their agents SPK Travels at Koyambedu Bus Stand and  they acknowledged the receipt of the parcels from the opposite party.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite party.     

 

4.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,04,525/- as compensation for the loss of articles and mental agony with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  Admittedly, the complainant booked two separate cotton boxes of goods addressed to Ahamad Ali and Ahmad Shah of Tirunelveli vide receipt No.2626 and 2627 dated:04.10.2009 as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2.    Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party carrying such business of parcel service in the name and style of Lakshmi Quick Parcel Service delivered the parcel under receipt No.2626 properly and not delivered the parcel under receipt No.2627.  Even after repeated requests and verification by the opposite party, the cotton box has not been delivered is also admitted.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the undelivered cotton box contained imported cellphones valuing to the tune of Rs.1,02,425/-.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1 & Ex.A2, there is nothing about the contents in the cotton boxes and its value.  The complainant also has not mentioned anything about the details of goods and its value.  The complainant has not taken any steps to insure the parcel also.  Further the contention of the complainant is that due police complaint has been lodged as per Ex.A3  ended in vain.   Hence, a legal notice dated:08.12.2009 was issued as per Ex.A4 for which, the opposite party sent reply with untenable contentions. Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case for the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite party in non-delivering of goods.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,02,425/- towards the value of the consignment, Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, hardship etc.    But the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove the value of the consignment.   Equally, the complainant has not substantiate the claim towards mental agony in the manner known to law.

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that the allegation that one of the cotton box contained imported cellphones to the value of Rs.1,02,425/- is utter false since the complainant has not disclosed the details of the contents in the cotton box consignment and its value, weight, nature of articles.   Immediately, after the report from the complainant regarding non delivery, the opposite party enquired about the cotton box and found untraceable.  The police also after due investigation, reported that it is not traceable.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has brought two cotton boxes having old clothes.  Hence, each charged Rs.100/- alone.    Without disclosing the nature of articles, value of articles, quantity of articles, filing such case amounts to abuse of process of law.  As per Section 8 of the Carriage of Road, this opposite party is exempted from liability. 

The learned Counsel for the opposite party cited a decision reported in

III (2006) CPJ 72

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Between

FRAANCH EXPRESS & ANR.

-Versus-

Dr. K.K. Thomas

Held that

          “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(g) – Transport Services – Non-delivery of consignment – O.P. was not told /informed about contents of consignment – In case of non-delivery, liability of O.P. limited to Rs.100/- as per consignment slip – Complainant well aware of conditions printed on said slip – Complainant only entitled to, by way of compensation, Rs.100/- as stipulated in condition – Order of Form awarding Rs.2,500/- compensation upturned”.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that this complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 02^nd day of January 2019. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	04.10.2009	Copy of receipt No.2627
Ex.A2	04.10.2009	Copy of receipt No.2626
Ex.A3	06.11.2009	Copy of CSR No.100/F2X/2009
Ex.A4	08.12.2009	Copy of legal notice by the complainant’s Counsel
Ex.A5	03.10.2009	Copy of reply by Counsel of the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT