By Sri.P.K.Sasi, President
The complainant is the POA holder of one Mr. Noby Poulose and the case of the complainant is that on 08/06/15 he has sent some important documents of Mr. Noby Poulose by courier paying required fees claimed by the opposite party. The said Noby Poulose was working at Dubai for the last 5 years and his wife was working at AIIMS, Delhi. The courier was sent through the opposite party to the wife of Noby Poulose at Delhi. The documents contained in the courier was original certificates for the purpose of an interview to be attended by Noby at Delhi. It was assured by the opposite party that if the courier was sent on 08/06/15 it will deliver at Delhi on 11/06/15. Due to the irresponsible and illegal act of the opposite party, the complainant could deliver that goods at Delhi on 25/06/15 only. Hence Noby could not attend the interview, which caused the loss of employment. The courier sent with the opposite party on 8/6/15 was returned back to the complainant on 26/06/15 stating that they could not find out the addressee. On examination it was found by the complainant that some correction were made on the address written on the cover by the complainant. Then the complainant sent the letter by speed post and that was reached at Delhi on 25/06/15. When it was questioned by the complainant that why the corrections are made on the address, he was told that it may be happened at Delhi. Then he submitted a complaint before the police whereas, the police has directed him to approach this Forum. According to the complainant the act of the opposite party definitely amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Due to the illegal act of the opposite party the Noby Poulose and his family happened to sustain unnecessary mental agony financial loss and heavy hardship also. Hence this complaint is filed for getting relief.
2) Being noticed on the complaint the opposite party entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed version. It is contented by the opposite party that the complainant could not be considered as a consumer and he has not hired any service for consideration or he is not a beneficiary of any service of the opposite party. They further contented that the amount of compensation claimed are not legally sustainable. According to the opposite party it is not disputed that a consignment was booked on 08/06/15 through the opposite party at Chalakkudy which is the franchisee of M/s DTDC Couriers & Cargo Ltd. which is a company engaged in the courier/logistics business. The above said consignment was booked by one Mr.Jijo John who is the complainant herein from Chalakudy and to one Mrs. Rosmy T.J. to be delivered at New Delhi. The address of the consignee on the cover was incomplete. The cover did not contain the details like building name, door number etc. The same was pointed out to the complainant and the cover was refused to be booked for delivery. Then the complainant requested the opposite party to book the same and informed that the consignee will collect the consignment from the DTDC office on calling her on the mobile phone number provided on the cover. It is only on the basis of such an assurance of the complainant that the consignment was booked by the opposite party despite the fact that the address was incomplete. The fact of incomplete address is evident from the copy of the consignment note leaf which is produced by the complainant.
3) The complainant had neither declared the contents of the consignment nor its value at the time of booking same for carriage. An amount of Rs.225/- was paid and collected by the opposite party from the complainant towards the service charge from Chalakkudy to Delhi. No other additional charges were paid by the complainant. There was also no request to insure the consignment and no additional charges or surcharges were paid or collected from him. The contents inside the consignment were never disclosed to the booking office. The opposite party categorically denied all other allegations stated in the complaint.
4) The opposite party further submitted that they had not given any assurance that the consignment will be delivered on 11/06/15 as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party denied that the consignment was taken for delivery by the opposite party at Delhi for delivery to the consignee as per the address of the consignee. On reaching the destination the courier delivery boy could not personally locate the addressee or her address and had contacted through mobile phone number as provided by the complainant. However, the said consignee could not be contacted as per the information provided by the mobile cell service provider that the person is not reachable or out side the coverage area. After trying to contact the consignee on several occasions on the same day and thereafter, as the person was not reachable and traceable the consignment could not be delivered to the consignee. Then inorder to avoid delay in service, the said consignment was immediately returned back from Delhi and delivered to the complainant on 20/06/15. The opposite party denied all other allegations raised against them by the complainant. They further submitted that they have not committed any sort of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice towards the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint without cost.
5) Then the case was posted for evidence and the points for consideration was that
1) whether there was any deficiency in service
happened on the part of opposite party ?
2) if so what cost and relief ?
6) From the side of complainant he has appeared before the Forum and submitted proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and explained all the averments stated in the complaint in detail. He also produced 9 documents which are marked as Ext. P1 to P9. Ext. P1 is the original receipt received from the opposite party dt. 08/06/15; Ext. P2 (SP) photograph of the address on the consignment; Ext. P3 is the original receipt given by the opposite party along with the consignment; Ext. P4 (SP) is the photograph of postal receipt of speed post dt. 20/06/15; Ext. P5 is the copy of complaint submitted before Chalakudy Police; Ext. P6 is the acknowledgment received from the police station; Ext. P7 is the copy of salary slip of Noby Poulose; Ext. P8 Promotion letter and Ext. P9 is the appointment letter. From the side of opposite party one Mr. Brimon Babu, Branch Manager of the opposite party appeared before the Forum and submitted counter proof affidavit in which he has affirmed and narrated all the contentions raised in their version in detail. He also produced 2 documents which are marked as Ext. R1 & R2. Ext. R1 is the copy of POA and Ext. R2 series (3 Nos.) model of receipts. Both sides filed detailed argument notes and we heard in detail also.
7) According to the complainant consignment sent by him through the opposite party returned back by simply lapsing several days without delivering to the addressee as assured by them, thereby the beneficiary of the contents of the assignment caused severe defects and loss whereas the opposite party contented that the address of the consignee was not complete and proper. Hence they could not deliver the consignment hence returned to the complainant without any delay. We have gone through the contents of affidavits filed and perused the documents produced from both sides. One of the main allegation raised by the opposite party was that the consignment was not insured and no additional surcharge was collected by them. Another main contention was that the address of the addressee was not clearly mentioned on the consignment. Ext. P1 is the original slip issued by the opposite party while booking the consignment it is mentioned in the colom No.8 charges a,b,c & d. a) Tariff, b) Value Added Service Charges, c) Risk Surcharge, d) Service Tax and a total amount including a+b+c+d is Rs.225/- collected from the complainant. There is no other provisions shows in the receipt to mention anything regarding the insurance of the article. The risk surcharge is already collected from the complainant. Ext. P2 being a photograph however it is marked as SP it would go to show that the detailed address of the addressee was mentioned on the consignment. Here the burden is upon the opposite party to prove before the Forum that there was no such address mentioned on the consignment. Neither any single piece of evidence adduced from the side of opposite party to prove their contentions. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the consignment was properly addressed and non delivery of the consignment definitely amounts to deficiency in service happened on the part of opposite party. Regarding other allegations stated by the complainant regarding the employment, interview, loss of job etc. there is no supporting evidence adduced from the side of complainant before us. Considering all these points discussed hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service towards the complainant.
In the result, we allow this complaint and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and cost to the complainant within one month from receiving copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 31st day of July 2017.
