C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant entrusted a Nokia hand set worth Rs. 5,480/- with the opposite party on 16-03-2011 for sending it to Smt. Kavya Arun, Chennai. But the handset was neither delivered to her nor returned to the complainant so far. The opposite party is responsible to deliver the item received by them. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. According to the complainant, he is entitled to get price of the disputed hand set from the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
2. Version of the opposite party
The allegation of entrustment of Nokia hand set with opposite party and its non delivery is put to strict proof of the complainant. If a mobile phone or any other electronic article is brought for sending through them, they will collect the bill of the article and other tax clearance papers with a written declaration for sending needs. If a person agrees those formalities the opposite party will collect special charges for sending the same. In this case such records are lacking with the opposite party for the sending occurred on 16-03-2011. Hence the allegation of the complainant is suspicious and wrong. The complainant is not cared to disclose the true facts and failed to comply with the formalities, before the franchise, it might have accepted the article and it would have send without taking special care. The opposite party denied the price of the disputed gadget. The complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary party since the opposite party is a franchise pf DIDC couriers and cargo Ltd. According to the opposite party the complaint is not at all entitled to get any relief’s as he claimed.
3. The complainant and the opposite party appeared through counsel. Opposite party filed their version, thereafter abandoned the proceedings. The complainant adduced only documentary evidence. Exts. A1 and A2 were marked. Thereafter we have heard the counsel for the complainant.
4. The points that emerges for determination are as follows:
i. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party or not?
ii. Costs of the proceedings?
5. Points Nos.i&ii. Ext. A1 is the copy of the receipt the evidence of transaction between the parties. Ext. A2 copy of the tax invoice shows the price of the Nokia handset. On a perusal of Ext. A1 consigner copy nowhere it is disclosed the description and the value of the article. The opposite party disputed that there is no records with regard to the description and value of the lost article since the complainant did not disclose the same before them. But they did not have a case that the entrusted article was delivered to the assignee. In the absence of evidence to the contrary we are of the view that the opposite party is committed deficiency in service on their part. In the absence of the declaration of the description of the entrusted article and its value we cannot rely Ext. A2 tax invoice. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get compensation as Rs. 2,000/- from the opposite party due to the deficiency in service. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are not ordering any costs of the proceedings.
6. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint as follows:
The opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant. The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 12% p..
a. from the day fixed for compliance of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of August 2011
