Kerala

Trissur

CC/05/1156

M.N.Sudhakaran Nair - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms. DTDC Courier Services and Cargo Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ravikumar Uppath

23 Jun 2009

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/05/1156

M.N.Sudhakaran Nair
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Ms. DTDC Courier Services and Cargo Ltd.
DTDC Courier Cargo Ltd. Agent Mr.Hari
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S. 3. Sasidharan M.S

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. M.N.Sudhakaran Nair

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Ms. DTDC Courier Services and Cargo Ltd. 2. DTDC Courier Cargo Ltd. Agent Mr.Hari

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Ravikumar Uppath

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. P.R.Vivek



ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
 
            The complainant’s case is as follows: On 13.12.04 the complainant entrusted a courier consignment containing his son’s driving licence to the 2nd respondent. He paid Rs.750/- as service charge for sending the consignment to his son who is working as Automobile Mechanic at Saudi Arabia. At the time of receiving the consignment, the 2nd respondent promised that the consignment will be delivered to his son within three days. But it was not delivered to his son as promised. Then the complainant approached 2nd respondent on 20.12.04 and informed that he will look into the matter and redress the grievances. Later after one month he was informed that the consignment was missed somewhere at Bombay and there is no chance to get it back. Thereafter the complainant applied for and obtained duplicate driving licence for which he had spent Rs.1000/-. He also spent nearly Rs.1000/- to contact his son over telephone many times. He also spent money for sending the licence to his son again. Since the driving licence not received by his son in time it badly affected his promotion. The complainant also sustained mental agony due to the negligence of the respondent. Though the complainant sent lawyer notice to the respondents, no reply sent. Hence the complaint.
 
            2. The respondents are called absent and set exparte.
 
            3. To prove the case of the complainant he filed an affidavit and the documents produced by him are marked as Exts. P1 to P7.
 
            4. According to the complainant, he entrusted a courier consignment containing his son’s driving licence and paid Rs.750/- as service charge for sending the consignment to his son’s address at Saudi Arabia. The respondent promised to deliver it within three days. But not delivered to his son as promised. Later after one month he was informed that the consignment was missed somewhere at Bombay and there is no chance to get it back. Though the complainant sent lawyer notice to the respondent, no reply sent. Hence the complaint. The complainant produced 7 documents to prove the case.
 
            5. There is no counter evidence to the evidence of the complainant.
 
            6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation for the negligent acts of the respondents with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within a month.
 

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 23rd day of June 2009.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.
......................Sasidharan M.S