Date of filing:      27.09.2022

                                                                                                                                        Date of disposal : 31.03.2023

 

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-I

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR. B.Sc, B.L.,                                                           ........MEMBER-II

 

CC. No.174/2022

THIS FRIDAY, THE 31th DAY OF MARCH 2023

 

Mr.P.Elumalai, S/o.Ponnurangam,

No.137, Perumal Kovil Street,

Periya Seikkadu,

M.M.C. Post, Chennai 51.                                                                       ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

 

1.M/s.S.T.Courier Private Limited, (Head Office),

    Rep. by its General Manager,

    No.199, Hariyan Street,

    Cantonment Pallavaram, Chennai 43.

 

2.M/s.Sri Uma Mohesh Xerox Shop,

    (S.T.Courier Franchises),

    No.443, Kamarajar Salai,

    Manali, Chennai – 600 068.                                                       .......Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                             :   Party in person.

Counsel for the opposite parties                                      :   Mr.M.Jaikumar, Advocate.

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 24.03.2023 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and Mr.M.Jai Kumar, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both parties, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, MEMBER-II.

 

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 extra amount collected from the complainant along with a prayer to refund a sum of Rs.1095/- extra amount collected from the complainant with 24% interest and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards cost of the complaint to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The Complainant is an Advocate. He had purchased an incubator device from one Mr. Sugavneswarn at Selam. Duo to fault in the said devise, he has to send the same to the seller for rectification. He had booked the courier through 2nd Opposite Party on 11.04.2022. He had paid Rs.1.295/- to the 2nd Opposite Party and the 2nd opposite party issued receipt for the same. After rectification the seller had sent the said device to the Complainant on 30.07.2022. The seller had paid Rs.210/- as courier charges to the agent of the 1st Opposite Party. The Complainant approached the 2nd Opposite Party and 1st Opposite Party and asked about the discrepancy in the courier charges. But the Opposite Parties had given evasive reply. The complainant issued legal notice dated 09.08.2022 to the Opposite Parties. But the Opposite Parties had not taken any action till date. Hence, the Opposite Parties had committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Complainant suffered severe mental agony and hardship and hence the complaint. 

 

Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-

The oppoiste paties state that it is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is Adcvocate and he purchased equipment with weight of 4 kg from Salem.  Since the said equipment did not work properly he had sent the same to the seller for repair.  The complaiant availed the service of the oppostie parties to send the above equipment by paying Rs.1295/- through Gpay to the agent i.e. second opposite party on 11.04.2022.  It is further alleged that the 1st opposite party agent had charged only Rs.200/- from sending the said parcel from Salem.  The complainant alleges that normal charge is Rs.200/- only but the 2nd opposite party charged and received Rs.1295/- the charge levied by the 2nd opposite party is Rs.1095/- extra.  The opposite parties submit that the above allegation is false and frivolour in nature.  The above consignment was booked under PRIORITY category by the complainant hence it was costlier.  That for sending the important and most valuable consignment and booked under PRIORITY category under which the complainant booked. The opposite parties submit that above complaint is not maintainable because complainant was not misrepresented by the 2nd opposite party and no fraudulent act was done by the 2nd opposite party.  If the complainant had felt tbe above charge is higher he would have booked in some other courier knowing that the priority service higher cost.  The consignment was sent in priority basis to Salem which cost higher to the company and when it sent back from Salem it was sent through ordinary basis in vehile carrying ordinary service hence it is not costlier.  The opposite parties submit that they took utmost care to deliver the consignment as much as possible with priority if it is booked under special category which have extra cost for delivering and insurance coverage is there. The officials of the 1st opposite party informed that they had not committed any deficiency in service and charge was made based on the priority basis under special category and sought for complaint to be dismissed.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A5. Though the opposite parties filed proof affidavit no documents were filed on their side.

Points for consideration:

Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in charging extra amount from the complainant has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

It is the case of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties had collected exorbitant amount as courier charges from the Complainant. The Complainant had paid Rs.1295/- as courier charges wherein the seller had paid Rs.210/- as courier charges. The Opposite Parties collected excess amount from him. Inspite of repeated requests, the Opposite Parties have not refunded the excess amount collected from him.

To prove the case, the Complainant deposed proof affidavit with 5 documents which were marked as Ex A1 to A5. Ex A1 is the screen shot of Rs.1295/- paid to the 2nd Opposite Party through Google Pay. Ex A2 is the courier receipt dated 11.04.2022. Ex A3 is the Courier receipt dated 30.07.2022. Ex A4 is the Legal notice dated: 09.08.2022 and postal receipts. Ex A5 are the acknowledgement cards.

  Per contra, the Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant’s Courier booked under Special Category on priority basis. They had taken utmost care to deliver the consignment as much as possible with priority it is booked under special category which have extra cost for delivering and insurance coverage is there. They had not committed any deficiency in service and charge was made based on the priority basis under special category. 

To refute the claim of the Complainant the 1st Opposite Party deposed proof affidavit without any documents.

It is seen from Ex A2 that the Complainant had booked courier through the 2nd Opposite Party by paying Rs.1295/- Ex A1 is the screen shot of the payment made to 2nd Opposite Party through Google Pay. However, on perusal of Ex A2, there is no mentioning about priority or special category as alleged by the Opposite Parties. Ex A3 is the courier delivery receipt of the 1st Opposite Party.

On perusal of Ex A2, there is no such mentioning that the said courier was booked under special category. Moreover, the Opposite Parties have not filed any documents to show that the said courier was booked under special category. Hence, in the absence of any evidence, the averment of the Opposite Parties is not acceptable.

Moreover, the Opposite Parties have not chosen to reply to the legal notice dated 09.08.2022 issued by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties would have informed the Complainant in detail about the charges collected by them. But the Opposite Parties failed to do so. The Opposite Parties have not given any explanation to the Complainant about the collection of such huge amount prior to filing of this complaint.

We have taken careful consideration of the pleadings and document of both the parties. We are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by collecting excess amount from complainant. This point is answered according. 

Point No.2:-

In view of the fore going discussion and findings, we have come to the conclusion that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The Complainant suffered mental agony and hardship due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the Opposite Parties. Hence, the complainant has to be compensated adequately in addition to refund of excess amount collected from him. Hence, we inclined to award Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- as cost in addition to refund of Rs.1095/- excessively collected from the Complainant. These points are answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them

a) To refund a sum of Rs.1095/- (Rupees one thousand ninety five only) excessively collected from the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b)  To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant. 

c)  To pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization. 

Dictated by the Member-II to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 31st day of March 2023.

 

   Sd/-                                                       Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                         MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 11.04.2022 Screen Shot of Payment paid by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party through Google Pay for a sum of Rs.1295/- Photo copy

Ex.A2 11.04.2022 Bill issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant Photo copy

Ex.A3 30.07.2022 Bill issued by the 1st opposite party. Photo copy

Ex.A4 09.08.2022 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties Photo copy

Ex.A5 ............... Acknowledgement card. Photo copy

 

 

 

  Sd/-                                                             Sd/-                                                        Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                            MEMBER-I                                          PRESIDENT