Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay `5,169 as cost of articles damaged and `5000 as compensation along with cost of the proceedings.

          The brief of complainant’s case is that he had entrusted to opposite party a small packet containing sterile articles to deliver Dr. Rahim, Carewell Hospital, Nullipadi, Kasaragod as per courier receipt No.0683904 as done earlier. But the opposite parties failed to deliver the same on next day.  On enquiry the opposite party told that they will deliver the packet within two days.  On enquiry with the addressee, it was told that they delivered the packet in spoiled condition soaked in Kerosene like substance and the articles are not usable.  So the complainant issued a lawyer notice to 1^st opposite party but they kept mum eventhough they have received the notice.  The opposite parties are bound by the terms and conditions to deliver the articles.  But they failed to do so.  The complainant eaks his livelihood from the meager income getting from the sale.  So the mental agony suffered by the complainant is uncountable.  All these was happened due to the deficient service of opposite parties.  Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version.  The opposite parties admits that the complainant entrusted a small packet to deliver the same to Dr.Rahim, carewell hospital, Nullipaadi, Kasaragod.  But they denies the averment that the opposite parties failed to deliver the packet under courier receipt No.0683904 and an enquiry with 1^st opposite party. Complainant was told that they deliver the pack within 2 days, that on enquiry the complainant came to know that the packet reached the destination in spoiled condition, soaked in kerosene like substance, that the value of articles is `5,169 that the opposite parties did not take reasonable care, that the opposite parties failed to deliver the articles in accordance with the terms of the consignment receipt and the contract, that the opposite parties are liable to make good the loss, that the complainant suffered uncountable mental agony that the opposite parties failed to render proper service to the complainant and the complainant is entitled for the loss etc.  According to opposite party the complainant is not a consumer as contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act.  The opposite parties submits that the sealed packet entrusted to them for delivery was delivered to the Consignee in good condition and the opposite party is producing the proof of delivery of the above consignment.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and the compensation claimed is without any basis and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1.      Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of 3^rd opposite party?

2.      Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3.      Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and Ext.A1 to A3. 

          The complainant’s case is that the opposite parties have not delivered the consignment to the addressee in good condition and hence he had suffered both financial and mental hardship and hence he is entitled to get the value of articles along with cost and compensation.  In order to prove his case he examined PW1 and PW2 and produced documents such as consignment note dated 27.01.2011, copy of the bills three in numbers and copy of notice issued to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant.  The Ext.A1 along with the admission of opposite party proves that the complainant had entrusted some articles to the opposite party to deliver the same to PW2, Dr. R. Rahim.  The PW2 is the address to whom the article were issued by the complainant through opposite parties.  He deposed that “Peecee representative  {]Imis\ F\n¡dnbmw.  Rm³ se³kpw acp¶pIfpw kÀPn¡Â saäocnbÂkpw {]Imisâ ASp¯p \n¶v HmÀUÀ sN¿mdp­v.  sImdnbdn ]mÀk Bbn«mWv km[mcW {]Imiv Ab¨p Xcp¶Xv.  27.01.11þ\v {]Imiv F\n¡v ]mÀk Ab¨n«p­v.  AXv spoiled BbXn\m  surgical materials use sN¿msX Xncn¨b¨ncp¶p.”  This deposition of PW2 proves that the articles issued by the complainant to opposite party was in damaged condition and hence he had returned the same, since it cannot be used.  So it is clear that the opposite party was failed to comply the terms as agreed in Ext.A1 due to the deficient service of opposite parties. So the opposite parties are liable to give the price of the damaged articles to the complainant.  The complainant has produced Ext.A2 series credit bills through which the articles were purchased which amounts to `5,169.  The complainant contended that he had suffered so much of mental agony for which he demands `5,000 as compensation.  It is true that he had suffered some mental agony for which we assess `1000 as compensation and the complainant is also entitled to get `1000 as cost of the proceedings and passed orders accordingly. 

          In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay `5,169 (Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Nine only) as the price of the articles along with `1,000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as compensation and `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.  Otherwise the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions as per Consumer Protection Act.

                           Sd/-                    Sd/-

                       President               Member         

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1.  Courier bill.

A2.  Invoice copy (3 in Nos.)

A3.  Letter dated 29.01.2011..

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant.

PW2.  Dr. R. Rahim

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT