The crux of the complainant’s case is as follows

 

            The complainant is a reputed novelist and he has published 33 Malayalam novels and 6 novels are published in the form of books. The complainant had sent a novel to one Mr. T.K. Reveendran, editor of “Naveenam” magazine published from Chennai, for publishing in the said magazine. The name of the said novel was “Yathra Thudarunnavar”. The said novel was sent to the said Raveendran by courier through the opposite party on 08/09/05. The cover containing the novel was written as press matter Malayalam novel and also informed to the opposite party and his booking clerk that the cover is containing Malayalam novel. They assured that the cover containing novel will reach the addressee on the next day or definitely it will reach the addressee on 10/09/05. But unfortunately the novel was misplaced and lost due to deficiency in service of the opposite party. The complainant alleged that due to the deficient act of opposite party, he suffered mental agony and monetory loss. Hence the complainant filed this complaint claiming Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of said novel Rs. 50,000/- towards the mental agony and tension suffered and litigation cost.

            The opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following main contentions.

i)                    The complaint is barred by limitation.

ii)                   The statement that the complainant had entrusted a novel on 08/09/05 is false. The complainant entrusted a cover containing some document for sending the same to Mr. T.K. Raveendran, Naveenam monthly and it was accepted as document with consignment No.H.2483049. But the complainant did not declare the value or its contents at the time of entrustment. The statement that the complainant had written over the envelop “Press-matter-Malayalam Novel” etc is false.

iii)                 The further statement that since the opposite party assured prompt delivery, the complainant did not take photocopy of the same is false.

iv)                 The statement that the complainant was offered an amount of Rs. 25,000 as consideration is false and made only for the purpose of the complaint. The statement that the novel if made in book from and mega serial can be prepared on the basis of this novel etc are surmises.   The compensation based upon such surmises are only to be rejected

v)                  If the article sent was so precious having such value the complainant ought to have insured the same declaring its value.

vi)                 The loss of the envelop was not due to the negligence of the opposite party. In spite of strenuous efforts this opposite party could not trace out the same. The statement that the complainant suffered mental, physical and monetory loss is false.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs?

Evidence consists of affidavits filed by both parties, exhibits A1 to A4 and

deposition  of PW1, DW1 & Dw2.

            Heard the counsels of both parties and perused the documents placed on record. It is not in dispute that the complainant entrusted a cover to the opposite party on 08/09/05. It is also not in dispute that the cover entrusted to the opposite party was lost. The dispute is with regard to the weight of the parcel and contents of the same. The original receipt issued is produced by the complainant and it is marked as Ext.A1. As per Ext.A1 the weight recorded is 20g and the charge received is Rs.36/-. But according to the complainant he had entrusted a novel of weight 500g to the opposite party. Whereas the opposite party contented that the complainant has not entrusted any novel but entrusted a cover containing some documents. In our view, no matter whether the cover contained novel or documents, due to the loss of the same, the complainant suffered mental agony and monetory loss.

 

            The opposite party’s counsel submitted that ext.A1 clearly showed that the parcel had a weight 20gm. The learned counsel for the opposite party relied on the complainant’s deposition that he had signed the ext.A1 receipt after verifying it. The learned counsel for the opposite party further submitted that there cannot be any presumption when there is direct evidence to a point. But the complainant at the last portion of the cross examination deposed that 20gm recorded in ext.A1 is wrong and that the actual weight is 500g. DW2 deposed that in 2005 the charge for 500g was Rs.35/-. The complainant’s counsel submitted that the alleged incident took place in 2005 and the amount received was Rs.36/-, so the weight of the cover was definitely more than 500gms. The learned counsel further submitted that DW1 has not produced any tariff to prove his case instead of his admission that the tariff of parcel is with him. In our opinion the non production of the 2005 tariff itself shows that, if produced it would have definitely gone against the opposite party.

 

             The complainant might have entrusted the said cover to the opposite party believing in their assurances that the cover will reach the addressee on the next day itself. As the opposite party failed to act according to their assurances, the complainant suffered inconveniences, mental tension and monetory loss. In our view,  the deficient act of the opposite party is the sole reason for this unnecessary litigation and therefore the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. Eventhough the complainant stated that the cover contained a novel, there is nothing on record to prove the same. So claim of Rs.25,000/-, the offered consideration for the said novel and the compensation based on mega serial and book are also not sustainable. Point no. 1 is found accordingly.

 

            In view of the findings in point no.1, the complaint is partly allowed.

            The opposite party will pay a compensation of Rs.8000/- to the complainant alongwith litigation cost Rs.2000/-.

            This order will be complied with within one month of receipt of this order failing which the awarded sums will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realisation.

Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member                    Sd/-

 

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

 

 

 

 

Ext.A1-Original receipt

Ext.A2-Copy of advocates notice

Ext.A3-Reply notice dtd 28-10-05

Ext.A4-Original receipt dtd 21/4/09

Ext.A4(a)-Original receipt dtd 27/5/09

 

 

Nil

By Order