By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

1. Complainant is a computer engineer and is running an agency of Zenith Computers as self employment unit for earning his livelihood. He send a Laptop (Zenith brand) worth Rs.35,000/- to Zenith Computers, Kochi on 30-8-2007 through the courier service of opposite party. The consignment was not delivered to the consignee. Hence this complaint.

2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 were served. The acknowledgement cards returned to this Forum bear the respective seals of these establishments along with signatures. Hence notices properly served. Opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 remained absent and did not file any version. Their names were called and they were set exparte on 05-9-2008.

3. Third opposite party filed version admitting that complainant had entrusted a consignment containing laptop to be send to the addressee specified in the receipt issued to him. It is stated that on 30-8-2007 itself the article was send from the Kottakal office of third opposite party. That from the sorting office it was send to second opposite party. That complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.

4. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of complainant who was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 marked for him. Counter affidavit filed by third opposite party and Exts.B1 and B2 marked for opposite party No.3. No evidence adduced by First and Second opposite parties.

5. It is admitted that on 30-8-2007 complainant had send a consignment containing a laptop to Zenith Computers, Cochin. It is also admitted by third opposite party in Ext.B2 that the said consignment was lost in transit. Failure to deliver the consignment amounts to deficiency in service. We find opposite parties deficient in service.

6. Regarding the liability, the contention raised on behalf of opposite party is that the liability is limited to Rs.100/- as per terms and conditions printed on reverse side of the consignment note/receipt. We cannot agree with this submission. Though it is printed on the reverse side of Ext.A1 consignment note, that the liability is limited to Rs.100/- this note is not signed by the complainant. The complainant has therefore not agreed or accepted the conditions printed there on. Moreover in this case the article was declared and its’ value was also declared. In Ext.A1 the value of the consignment is stated as Rs.35,000/- and it’s weight is shown as 3kg. Opposite party has collected Rs.35/- as charges. In Ext.A2 declaration form it is declared that the consignment contains a laptop (Zenith) valuing Rs.35,000/-. It is amply proved by cogent evidence that the value of the consignment is rs.35,000/-. When the article send has been declared the complainant is definitely entitled to be compensated for loss suffered by him. The deficiency in this case is a serious one. There is no doubt that the parcel/article was handled during transit only by persons within the working circle of opposite parties. No steps were taken even after reporting the loss, to trace it and return it. Ext.A3 is the lawyer notice issued by complainant seeking compensation. The reply on the side of opposite party is an offer to pay Rs.100/- only. The attitude of the service provider in not attending to the grievance of the consumer and shirking responsibility even though the complainant has declared the value of the consignment is totally unfair. We hold that complainant is entitled to Rs.35,000/- as damages with interest @ 9% per annum from date of complaint till payment, which would be adequate relief to the complainant. First opposite party being the Managing Director of DTDC Couriers and second opposite party being the regional office to which the consignment was directed are equally responsible along with third opposite party with whom the consignment was initially booked. He is also entitled to cost of Rs.2,500/-.

7. In the result, we allow the complaint and order that all the three opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) as damages along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment together with cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Dated this 13th day of July, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1

PW1 : Mampadan Siraj Musthafa, complainant.

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3

Ext.A1 : Consignment note from Zenith Computers, Cochin to complainant.

Ext.A2 : Declaration Form by complainant to opposite party.

Ext.A3 : Lawyer notice dated, 20-2-2008 issued by complainant’s counsel to

opposite party.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2

Ext.B1 : Computer print of DTDC Courier and Cargo limited Franchisee

Booking Manifest.

Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 12-01-2007 from opposite party to

complainant.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER