Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/19/2007

K.Veera Raghavan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Professional Couriers - Opp.Party(s)

R.Palani Swamy

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  03.01.2007

                                                                        Date of Order :  06.09.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.19/2007

WEDNESDAY THIS 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

 

Mr. K. Veera Raghavan,

C/o. Maruthi Service Masters,

Plot No.9, Thiru-Vi-ka-Industrial Estate,

Chennai 600 032.                                         .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

1.  The Professional Couriers,

NO.33, Whites Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai 600 014.

 

2. The Manager,

M/s. Professional Couriers,

Module NO.13,

Sidco Garment Complex,

Guindy,

Chennai 600 032.                                        .. Opposite party.

 

Counsel for Complainant             :    M/s. Rajnish Pathiyil & other      

Counsel for opposite parties        :    M/s. S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi & others         

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the doll and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

        The complainant submit that on 25.7.2005 he had parceled one beautiful doll worth of Rs.2000/- to be delivered to his friend at Bombay as a birthday gift through the opposite parties courier service.  The consignment bill No.660125197, dated 25.7.2005. Further the complainant state that the opposite party assured that the parcel will be delivered within two days.  But it is unfortunate that the parcel has not been delivered.  Despite of  repeated telephone calls the opposite party has not responded properly and has not given the POD.   Accordingly the complainant  issued legal notice to opposite party on 10.9.2005  and the same was received by the opposite party on 23.9.2005.    As such the act of the opposite parties  amount to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed. 

2. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the opposite parties are as follows:

        The opposite parties denied each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite parties submit that the complainant had booked a consignment on 25.7.2005 to deliver the consignment to its destination at Bombay.   The opposite parties further state that the company is rendering service in this field for so many years and the allegation that the agents of the opposite parties behaved in a lethargic manner is absolutely false and frivolous.   The complainant is very much aware of the terms and conditions of the opposite party at the time of booking the consignment.   The opposite parties take up the liability arising upto Rs.100 and not above.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and no documents  marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

4.   The point for the consideration is:  

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of Doll as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service with cost as prayed for ?

5. POINTS 1 & 2: -

 

        Heard opposite party counsel.   The complainant counsel not turned up to advance any oral argument;  after filing written argument.  The complainant pleaded and contended that on 25.7.2005 he had parceled one beautiful doll worth of Rs.2000/- to be delivered to his friend at Bombay as a birthday gift through the opposite party courier service.  The consignment bill No.660125197, dated 25.7.2005 is Ex.A1.   The opposite party assured that the parcel will be delivered within two days.  But it is unfortunate that the parcel has not been delivered; even after repeated telephone calls the opposite party has not responded properly and has not given the POD.   Hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice Ex.A2 in detail that  he has failed to gift the doll to his friend which caused great mental agony.  The complainant is claiming a sum of  Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the doll and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation with cost.

6.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the consignment booked on 25.7.2005 but its worth of Rs.2000/- is not known.  As per the terms and conditions of courier service the opposite party is not liable for damage or improper delivery etc.  The opposite party has not denied that the consignment not reached the addressee inproper time, much less not at all reached the addressee.  Even after repeated requests of the complainant  the opposite party was not able to give proper answer and POD also.   The claim of  Rs.2,000/-  towards cost of the doll and compensation of Rs.5,000/-  towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost of the complaint is unsustainable and exorbitant.   The learned counsel for  opposite party cited a decision reported in

1996 SCC (4) 704, JT 1996 (6) 254

BHARATHI KNITTING COMPANY

..Vs..

DHL WORLDWIDE EXPRESS COURIER DIVISION OF AIR FREIGHT LTD

 

 

 

 

Held that

In view of the above consideration and findings we are of the opinion that the National Commission was right in limiting the liability undertaken in the contract entered into by the parties and in awarding the amount for deficiency of service in the extent of the liability undertaken by the respondent.   Therefore, we do not think that there is any illegality in the order passed by the Commission.   Shri.Krishnamani has brought to our notice that there are number of judgments covering divergent views.   In view of the view we have expressed above, it is now settled law and the Tribunals would follow the same.   Lastly, it is contended that besides the amounts awarded by the State Commission, liberty may be given to the appellant to pursue the remedy available in law.  It is needless to mention that the remedy available at law would be pursued accordingly to law.

         

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the Doll and pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.    The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards cost of the Doll and pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only)  to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

          Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  6^th    day  of  September  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

 

Ex.A1-  25.7.2005 - Copy of consignment bill.

Ex.A2- 10.9.2005  - Copy of legal notice to opposite party.

Ex.A3- 23.9.2005   - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A4- 14.11.2005         - Copy of reply from the opposite party.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   .. Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.