Date of filing:     24.06.2022

                                                                                                                                   Date of disposal:31.01.2023

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA (Inter),B.L.,                                                    ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.152/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

Mr.R.Chellaian,S/o.Ramaiyan,

No.14, Kovil Street,

Korakkanthandalam Village,

Uthukottai Taluk, 

Odappai post, Thiruvallur District – 602 023.                               ……Complainant.

                                                                            //Vs//

1.M/s.Professional Courier Corporate Office,

   Represented by its General Manager Mr.Gani,

   No.1203/A, Bhumiraj Costarica,

   Plot No.1&2, Sector18, Sanpada, Navi Mumbai,

   Maharashtra, India 400705.

 

2.M/s.Professional Courier,

   Represented by its Branch Manager Mr.Arunkumar,

   No.4, Siva Vishnu Koil Street,

   Royajpuram, Tiruvallur HO, Tiruvallur – 602 001.

 

3.M/s.Professional Courier,

    Represented by its Branch Manager Mr.Prabhu,

    No.498, 1st Bypass Road,

    Gummidipoondi, Tamil Nadu 601 201.

 

4.M/s.Professional Courier,

    Represented by its Branch Manager Mr.Nagaraj,

    Reddy Street, Uthukkottai,

    Tamil Nadu 602 026.                                                                  …..opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                           :   party in person.

Counsel for the opposite parties                    : M/s.R.Sathyanarayanan, Advocate. 

 

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 20.01.2023 in the presence of  the complainant who appeared in person and M/s.R.Sathyanarayanan Advocate, counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by both parties this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT.Dr.S.M LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in delay caused by the opposite parties in delivering the parcel containing the Pan Card of the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Sum and substance of the complaint:-

 

The complaint allegation was that the complainant applied for Pan Card which was issued and was sent by the opposite party on 12.03.2022 to Thiruvallur Professional Courier Office on 15.03.2022.  However, Thiruvallur Professional courier office did not inform the complainant nor delivered the same to the complainant but sent the parcel to Gummidipoondi  Uthukottai Office  on 16.03.2022.  It is seen that the parcel with registeration No.VPL212121654 was kept outside the office for a period of 3 months i.e. from 16.03.2022 to 07.06.2022 without any information to the complainant. On 06.06.2022 the complainant received a call from the Uthukottai Professional courier office stating that the parcel could not be delivered.  After which on verification it is seen that the cover was illegally retained for three months by the opposite party without delivering the same to the complainant.  When contacted by Uthukkottai Thiruvallur and Gummidipoondi Office bearers there was no response. Thus stating that the act of the opposite party caused hardship and mental agony the present complaint was filed alleging irresponsible attitude and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for the following reliefs as mentioned below;

To direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties;

 To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

 Defence of the opposite parties:

The crux of the written version filed by the opposite parties is that the consignment could not be delivered only for the reason that the consignee‘s address was out of service area and he was called to pick the same from the office and when he did not turn up the same was sent back to Mumbai office and once again it came back and it got delivered on 26.05.2022 to the complainant.  The opposite parties accepted that there was some sort of service failure but the same was neither wilful nor wanton. Further the opposite parties contented that the complainant did not describe as to how he faced inconvenience due to the non availability of the Pan Card.  Further the consignment was not insured and the maximum damage that could be claimed as per the Carriage by Road Act 2007 is not beyond 10 times of the service charges and thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint. 

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked on their side.  Though the opposite parties filed proof affidavit was filed but no documents were filed on their side.

 Points for consideration:-

Whether the deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant against the opposite parties in causing delay in delivering the consignment containing the Pan Card has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1

On the side of the complainant following documents were filed in support of his allegations; 

Pan Application Receipt dated 10.03.2022 was marked as Ex.A1;

Parcel Tracking details dated 23.06.2022 was marked as Ex.A2;

Mail complaint copy to opposite party dated 22.06.2022 was marked as Ex.A3;

Heard the oral arguments of complainant. The opposite parties did not appear before this commission after filing their written arguments to adduce any oral arguments and hence after providing sufficient opportunities this commission decided to consider the written arguments of the opposite parties as oral arguments to decide the complaint on merits closing the oral argument stage of the opposite parties

The crux of the arguments adduced by the complainant is that the Pan Card consignment when it reached Thiruvallur Professional Courier Office on 15.03.2022 they did not provide any intimation regarding its delivery nor the same was delivered to him. Further it is his contention that without information it was sent to Gummidipoondi  Uthukottai Office  on 16.03.2022, from where it was sent back to Mumbai.  At last again it was sent back to Thiruvallur and got delivered on 25.06.2022.  In the mean time it is the specific case of the complainant that without any information the consignment was kept idle for nearly three months with the Gummidipoondi  Uthukottai Office which caused mental agony to the complainant.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

On the other hand from the written arguments of the opposite parties we could see that they had stated that the consignment was not delivered as the consignee address was out of service area and when he was asked to pick up the same from their office, the complainant did not turn up within a reasonable time and therefore the consignment was sent to Mumbai Office. They admitted that there was some delay.  However, it was defended that the delay in delivery was neither willful nor wanton. Thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

On appreciation of the material evidence and pleadings produced by both the parties it is amply seen that vide Ex.A2 the Track Report it is seen that the consignment was sent from Mumbai on 13.02.2022 and received by Chennai Office on 14.03.2022 and then on 15.03.2022 by Thiruvallur office.  On the same day on 15.03.2022 it was despatched to Gummidipoondi Office and received by them on 16.03.2022.  On 07.06.2022 it was despatched to Mumbai Office and after that again it was sent back and delivered to the complainant on 25.06.2022.  On the basis of Tract Report we could see that the consignment when reached Thiruvallur Office it was not kept for a reasonable time as alleged by the opposite parties in their defence enabling the complainant to come and pickup the same.  Further no proof was also submitted by the opposite parties in support of their defence that they informed the complainant to come and receive the consignment. It is also seen that the consignment was kept idle until 07.06.2022 at Gummidipoondi Office and after that the same has been sent to Mumbai Office and from there back to Thiruvallur Office.  In such circumstances when no plausible explanation was given by the opposite parties for keeping the consignment at the Gummidipoondi Office nearly for three months without returning the same to Mumbai Office some doubt is created in the minds of this commission.  If it is their case that the complainant address was out of service area and the consignment could not be delivered to him  no proof was submitted by them. But contrarily it was kept for three months and then sent back to Mumbai Office which is a clear neglignce and deficiency in service on their part.  After accepting the consignment on consideration for delivering the same and in not delivering it promptly is clear deficiency in service on their part.  In such circumstances we answer the point in favour of the complainant holding that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in causing delay in delivering the consignment to the complainant.

Point No.2:-

With regard to the relief to be granted though it is contented by the opposite parties that the delay was neither wilful nor wanton no proper evidence or explanation was provided by them.  In such circumstances this commission comes to a conclusion that awarding a compensation of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the opposite parties to the complainant would be proper in the facts and circumstances of the case for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to non delivery of consignment containing the Pan Card. Further we award Rs.5,000/- cost towards the litigation expenses to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severely directed 

a) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order; 

b)  to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 31th day of January 2023.

 

 

       -Sd-                                                                                                                       -Sd-

 MEMBER-II                                                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

 

Ex.A1 10.03.2022 Pan Application Receipt. Xerox

Ex.A2 23.06.2022 Parcel Tracking details. Xerox

Ex.A3 22.06.2022 Mail complaint copy to opposite parties. Xerox

 

 

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-

 

-Nil-

 

      -Sd-                                                                                                                -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                    PRESIDENT