IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 21st day of July, 2022
Filed on 8.03.2022
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar, Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma, BA, LLB(Member)
In
CC/No.47/2022
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Saji Philipose 1. The Manager
Kallathuthara Kizhakkathil Professional Couriers
Evoor South, Keerikkad.P.O Apsara Building
(Party in Person) Vegetable Market Road,
Kayamkulam-690 502
(Adv. Steffi Rose Babu)
O R D E R
SRI. S. SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complaint filed under Sec.35of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
1. Material averments briefly discussed is as follows:-
On 6/1/2022 a judgment of the family court, Nedumangad was sent through opposite party M/s Professional couriers from Trivandrum to Kayamkulam. Complainant had spend an amount of Rs.7000/- to the advocate for getting the judgment. Though as per the computer of opposite party the documents reached Kayamkulam it was not delivered to the complainant. Though complainant visited the opposite parties office several times, the documents were not delivered and they gave a letter stating that the document is missed. Hence the complaint is filed for giving a direction to the opposite party to take out a copy of judgment. Complainant is also seeking an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost.
2. Opposite party filed a version mainly contending as follows:-
The allegation that the complainant obtained a judgment by spending Rs. 7000/- is false. The parties can collect their judgment at free of cost. It is admitted that the consignment is missing. It was received at the office of professional courier, Kayamkulam but they failed to deliver the judgment. Hence a missing letter was issued to the booking office on 18/1/2022.
3. Opposite party had approached the complainant for an amicable settlement on the day of missing itself. They had enquired the case number of family court, nedumangad to obtain a copy. But the complainant was not willing and co-operating with the oppsoit party. He was demanding money instead of lost consignment. He demanded an amount of Rs.35,000/- for the consignment. Hence it is clear that the intention of the complainant is only to get money and not the lost consignment. Complainant has not sustained any injury due to the lost consignment. Hence it is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.
4. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite party as alleged?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a copy of judgment through the opposite party which was lost ?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation?
4. Reliefs and costs?
5. Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1and Ext.A1 to A4 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and 2 and Ext.B1 and B2 from the side of the opposite party.
6. Point No. 1 to 3:-
PW1 is the complainant. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A4.
7. Rw1 is the office staff of the opposite party. She filed an affidavit stating that she is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and the contents of the version filed are true and correct and marked Ext.B1 and B2.
8. RW2 is the Asst. Manager of opposite party. He filed an affidavit stating that he is well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case and the version was drafted under his instruction and it is true and correct.
9. As per Ext.A3 receipt dtd. 6/1/2022 a letter was booked at Trivandrum to PW1 at Kayamkulam. An amount of Rs. 50/- was collected by the opposite party M/s Professional couriers. PW1 enquired several times after 8/1/2022 at the Kayamkulam office of opposite party. However they informed that though as per their records the parcel received Kayamkulam it was misplaced and hence they could not deliver the same. Ext.A2 letter was issued to PW1 on 18/1/2022 stating that the consignment is lost. Thereafter the complaint is filed on 8/3/2022. For giving a direction to the opposite party to take out a judgment of the Family Court which was the consignment. PW 1 is also claiming Rs. 5000/- as cost and Rs. 50,000/- as compensation. Opposite party filed a version admitting the loss of consignment and the matter was informed to PW1 on 18/1/2022. In the version they under took to get a certified copy of the judgment of Family Court, Nedumangad and give to the complainant. However they denied that complainant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- which was demanded to them. Complainant got examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked. From the side of the opposite party two witnesses were examined as RW1 and RW2 and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked.
10. Relying upon the oral evidence coupled with Ext.A1 to A4 documents complainant pointed out that the consignment which was booked in his favour on 6/1/2022 at Trivandrum which is revealed from Ext.A3 receipt was not delivered to him. Though reached Kayamkulam either it was misplaced or it is missing from Kayamkulam office. According to PW1 he had spend an amount of Rs.7000/- for getting the copy of judgment of Family Court, Nedumangad which was sent from Trivandrum to Kayamkulam. Hence according to him he is entitled for compensation. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party pointed out that the document was misplaced from their part. However from Ext.B2 it can be seen that their liability is limited for Rs.100/- and so complainant is not entitled for any more amount than Rs.100/-. Rw1 and 2 admitted the loss of document. RW1 stated that on 7/1/2022 the document reached Kayamkulam and from 8/1/2022 onwards for about 4 days PW1 had visited their office for getting the document. However as per their records it was missing. Rw2 also admitted that on 8/1/2022 PW1 had reached their office enquiring about the consignment. He admitted that there was deficiency in service from their part for non delivery of the consignment. He also admitted that complainant is entitled for compensation for the amount. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Chhattisgarh State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. in Appeal No.FA/19/443 dtd. 9/1/2020 pointed out that they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.100/- only. The learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting Company Vs. DHL World Wide Express Courier Division of Air Freight Ltd. dtd. 9/5/1996 in which case also the compensation was fixed @ of U.S dollar 100. Hence according to the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party their liability cannot exceed Rs. 100/-. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Associated Road Carrie rs Ltd. Vs. M/s Kamlender Kashyap & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.4412-4413 dt of 2010 ). As per Sec. 10 of the carriers Act, a notice is to be issued within 6 months. Here in this case the complaint was filed on 8/3/2022. However on 1/4/2022 complainant sent Ext.A4 notice demanding the consignment. It is true that Ext.A4 is undated. Ext.A1 is the AD card by which opposite party received the notice. From Ext.A1 it is seen that the notice was sent on 1/4/2022 and it was received by the opposite party on 2/4/2022. So it is crystal clear that a notice which is mandatory and u/s 10 of the carriers act was sent by the complainant within 6 months. During cross examination Rw1 and 2 admitted receipt of the notice.
11. According to Pw1 the consignment contains a judgment of the Family Court, Nedumangad which was sent from Trivandrum to Kayamkulam. He had spent an amount of Rs.7,000/- for collecting the judgment. In the version as well as during evidence opposite party admitted loss of the document and so they are liable to compensate complainant. As per the decision relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party the compensation is to be limited only to Rs.100/-. Admittedly the parcel was not enquired. In the version opposite party had agreed to take out a certified copy and issue to PW1 provided the case number is given. In said circumstances we are of the opinion that direction can be given to the opposite party to take out a certified copy of the consignment(judgment) and give to complainant. Compensation of Rs.100/- which is mentioned in Ext.B2 can be awarded. These points are found accordingly.
12. Point No. 4:-
In the result, complaint is allowed in part.
a) Complainant is directed to give the case number of the judgment of Family Court of Nedumangad. Opposite party will arrange to get a certified copy of the same and hand over the same to the complainant.
b) Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.100/- as compensation to PW1.
c) Complainant is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.3000/- as cost.
The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 21st day of July, 2022.
Sd/-Sri.S.SanthoshKumar(President)
Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Saji Philipose(Complainant)
Ext.A1 - AD card
Ext.A2 - Consignment Letter
Ext.A3 - Copy of Receipt
Ext.A4 - Copy of Notice
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Deepa Thampan (Op Staff)
RW2 - Steve Sam Babu( Ass.Manager OP)
Ext.B1 - Consignment letter
Ext.B2 - Receipt
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
