BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 97/2010 Filed on 24.03.2010
Dated : 31.07.2013
Complainant:
Dr. S. Venu, Narayana Mandiram, Kalliyoor P.O, Nemom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 042.
Opposite parties:
1. M/s Professional Couriers, Near State Bank of Travancore, Alummoodu, Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Area Manager, M/s Professional Couriers, Near Ayyappan Coil, Behind Model High School, Thiruvananthapuram-695 014.
3. M/s Professional Couriers, G.S. Building, Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. S. Roshan for 1st & 3rd O.P)
This C.C having been heard on 23.07.2013, the Forum on 31.07.2013 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR: MEMBER
Complainant sent a parcel containing Ayurvedic medicines to his patient, named Adv. Renganathan at Trichy through the opposite parties on 28.12.2009 vide receipt No. 1740654 and remitted a sum of Rs. 40/- for the same. Complainant’s said patient wanted the said medicine for taking the same to Malaysia on 30th of December 2009. The aforesaid parcel contained medicines for diabetic and other diseases. The opposite parties did not give sufficient importance for keeping the parcel without any damages. When the parcel reached Trichy, it was found seriously damaged. The said parcel did not reach the addressee in time and hence the said patient left Trichy without the medicines. Since the parcel was completely damaged when it reached Trichy, the parcel was sent back to the complainant. But so far the said parcel did not reach the complainant. Complainant contacted the Balaramapuram office and Thiruvananthapuram office of the opposite parties many times. But there was no response either from the Balaramapuram Office or Thiruvananthapuram office of the opposite parties. The acts and deeds of the opposite parties caused mental pain and agony to the complainant in addition to the loss of medicines valued more than Rs. 3,000/- and the registration charges for sending the parcel to the tune of Rs. 40/-. Hence this complaint.
Opposite parties 1 & 3 entered appearance and filed version. 2nd opposite party did not turn up despite service of notice from the Forum nor filed any version. Opposite parties 1 & 2 argues as follows:
It is true that a consignment was booked at their office on 28.12.2009 at about 5 O’ clock in the evening addressed to one Mr. Renganathan at Trichy. The said parcel was brought packed by the complainant himself and he never disclosed its actual contents. When asked about the contents, the complainant informed that it was some toys. If the contents were actually disclosed as medicines they would not have accepted and sent the same, since drugs are not permissible to send through courier service. This fact among other conditions of carriage were brought to the notice of the complainant at the time of booking the consignment itself who in turn had signed in the courier consignment note as token of acceptance of the same. The consignment booked at the office before 02.00 pm only can be sent to Tamil Nadu area on the same day which will be reaching the destined station on the next working day following delivery on the subsequent day. As the complainant booked the parcel late only about 05.00 pm on 28.12.2009 the same was able to send to Tamil Nadu only on 29.12.2009 so that it will reach the addressee at Trichy on 31.12.2009. This fact was informed to the complainant at the time of booking itself to which he fully agreed and accordingly the consignment was accepted by them. Accordingly the said parcel was sent to Tamil Nadu on 29.12.2009 and reached the destined station on 30.12.2009 evening and the same was taken for delivery on 31.12.2009. But the addressee was not there and another person found there was not prepared to receive the parcel and hence the said parcel was kept at the Trichy office. Immediately this fact was informed to this opposite party’s office from Trichy office who in turn informed the complainant to inform the addressee to collect the parcel from Trichy office. As even after two weeks nobody turned up to accept the parcel at the Trichy office they sent back the same to this opposite party’s office on 19.01.2010. On receiving back the parcel the complainant was also intimated several times to collect back the parcel which he had never done. No damage was caused to the said parcel as alleged. As per the courier consignment note, the document which proves the contract between the parties, clearly shows the condition of carriage and the clause limiting the carrier’s liability in sufficiently bold prints which are easily readable. These conditions were brought to the notice of the consignor by the opposite party at the time of entrustment of the consignment by the consignor to the opposite party which was fully understood and accepted by the consignor, in token of which the complainant himself has signed in the courier consignment note which make the parties binding by the terms in the contract. As per the said terms and conditions, if at all any loss had occurred to the complainant due to the act of the opposite party, the opposite parties’ liability is restricted to Rs. 100/-. There is no negligence or irresponsibility or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party warranting payment of any compensation. The complaint may be dismissed with costs to this opposite party.
Points raised for consideration are:-
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
(ii) Whether the complainant is eligible for any compensation or cost as applied for.
In support of the complaint, complainant filed proof affidavit. Exts. P1 to P4 were marked. He was examined as PW1. Opposite parties 1 & 3 filed proof affidavit. 2nd opposite party neither filed any proof affidavit or documents. The consignment in question was produced before this Forum by opposite parties and it was marked as MO1.
Points (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that he booked a courier through the opposite parties to deliver at Trichy. But it was not delivered in time and when it reached Trichy it was not acknowledged by the consignee as it was in a tampered condition. Till now, that consignment was not received back by the complainant. Opposite parties 1 & 3 filed version denying the allegations of the complainant. They contended that the complainant send Ayurvedic drugs, which was not disclosed by him at the time of booking the parcel. It is against their rules, as drugs are not permissible to send through courier service. If he disclosed the contents as drugs, then they would not have accepted the same. Then, about the time of delivery also the complainant was informed. Knowing all these, he signed the contract. Here, the only question to decide is whether there is any valid contract between the two. On perusal of the documents furnished by the complainant especially Ext. P1, the courier consignment note, it is clearly visible that the complainant put his signature after reading the terms and conditions. Complainant in his deposition stated that he put his signature without reading the content. But we can’t believe that such a prudent man, that too a doctor, will sign a document without reading the same. By putting his signature, he accepted the terms and conditions of the opposite party and there arises a valid contract among them. He had no case that his signature was forged one. On verification of the signature seen on the original complaint and Ext. P1, Forum was also convinced, about its genuinity. So the complainant is eligible for Rs. 100/- only as compensation as the liability of the opposite party is fixed as Rs. 100/- as per the contract signed between the parties. Moreover complainant claimed Rs. 3,000/- as cost of the medicines send through the courier. But he failed to produce any documentary evidence for the same. Even if he produced the same, contributory negligence on the part of the complainant prohibits him from claiming any other compensation from the opposite party. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, is clearly established for which complainant is to be compensated.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant Rs. 100/- as compensation within two weeks of receipt of this order. Under the facts and circumstances of the complaint, no order on cost.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of July 2013.
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
jb
C.C.No. 97/2010
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Dr. Venu
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Courier consignment note dated 28.12.2009
P2 - Copy of letter issued by complainant to opposite party.
P3 - Copy of letter issued by complainant to opposite party.
P4 - Acknowledgement card
P4(a) - Acknowledgement card
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
V COURT EXHIBIT
MO1 - Consignment
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
