ORDER

SRI RAMACHANDRA.M.S,  PRESIDENT

1. The complainant file a complaint with this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 alleging deficiency in service seeking direction to OP to pay  a sum of Rs.75,512- along with interest from 13.11.2023 and also direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service and such other reliefs.

2.   The following are the complaint's key facts: 

This is the case of the complainant thatOP being the Logistic company delivers parcels and packages in the country and the complainant approached the OPand mentioned the commodities and goods to be sent to his son in Sweden and OP agreed for the same, subsequently on 13.11.2023brought quite a number of goods and commodities and after verifyingand filteringsome of the electric goodsand packed only permitted.The complainant submitted that the complainant handed out 65 itemsat the time of packing andthe OP assured the complainant that the items would be delivered to the complainant son in Sweden within10-12 days without fail and the complainant has paid Rs.14,113/-and Rs.11,399/- to two invoices in total of Rs.25,512/-. The complainant submits that at the time of issuing bill the OP have mentioned only amount, but not mentioned any items details and subsequently the complainant received email from Federal Express stating that the package could not be deliveredto the receiver as there are certainfood items which could not be transferred due to the custom rules and immediately the complainant informed the same to the OP customer care, but they have not taken any immediate action either to deliver or toretrieve the package.The complainant submits that the package of items containing food itemsworth about Rs.50,000/-and the complainant has paid Rs.25,000/- to OPfor transportation of consignment.Due to the act the OP, the complainant has issued legal notice on 18.12.2023, but even after service of notice the OP have neither responded to the said notice nor have taken any stepseither to deliver or retrieve the said consignment.Aggrieved by the act and action of the OP, complainant was forced to initiate the present complaint by seeking relief of as prayed in the complaint along with other reliefs.

3. On receipt of notice, OP remained absent and they have been placed ex-parte.

4.  The complainant filed chief-examination affidavit along with relevant documents in support of their contention which has been marked as C1 to C8.

5.  Heard arguments of complainant. The matter is reserved for order.

6. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint and there by prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
2. What order?

7. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1               :       Partly in Affirmative

Point No.2               :       As per final order

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1:- Despite of service of notice, OP not appeared before the commission and not chosen to file version to contest the matter.  The Judgment rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, which is reported in CPR 2018(1) at Page 325 between Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance V/s Dr.Nishi Gupta, In this case, Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Non-filing of Written version in the complaint which amounts to admission of complaint allegations”. The guidelines of the above ruling is aptly applicable to the case on hand as the OP in this case remained absent and on account of that they are placed ex-parte. In the absence of version and affidavit from their side, the complaint allegations of complainant is to be held as a proved fact. On this point, an inference could be drawn in favour of complainant as against the OP that there is a deficiency in service on the part of    the OP.  

9. The complainant filed chief examination affidavit by  re-iterating the complaint averments as against the OP, which is supported by annexure documents produced by the complainant are marked Doc-1 to Doc-8. On perusal of Annexure document No.1 to 4  are the invoices, it is clear that  the complainant has booked consignment with OP   on 13.11.2023 and document no.5 is payment details of Rs.25,512/- which is made for transportation of items mentioned in the annexure documents. On perusal of all these annexure documents, it is crystal clear that  complainant has booked the consignment  with the OP along with items list and also paid amount for delivery of items to Sweden. The complainant contended that complainant received the email message from Federal Express stating that package could not be delivered  as there are certain goods items which could not be transferred due to the custom rules and the complainant intimated the same to the OP, but the OP have not taken any action to deliver the items or retrieve the items. It is pertinent to note that the complainant has pleaded in the complaint that the complainant has spent Rs.50,000/- for preparation of food items  and spend Rs.25,512/- for transporting the consignment. By alleging  the complainant also issued legal notice on 18.12.2023 demanding the OP to take action to deliver the items or retrieve the items, but the OP have not responded to the notice.  It is crystal clear from the above documents, OP has committed negligent and careless service to the complainant during the course for delivering the items of the complainant event after taking considerable time and amount for transportation. The act and omission amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP. When such being the case, the OP is liable refund the  amount to the complainant along with other  reliefs granted.   

10. Further, all the allegations as against the OP are proved fact beyond reasonable doubt for the reason that the annexure documents-1 to 8 which clearly supports entire complaint allegations as against the OP. Under such circumstances, for their wilful, diligent and negligent service, the OP is held liable to pay  medical insurance claim to  the complainant.

11. Further, in the absence of OP and   not chosen to contest the matter by participating in the proceedings in the complaint is fatal to the case on hand.  Their absence in the complaint and not filing version and affidavit is a clear admission from the OP side that, whatever the complainant alleges as against OP is to be held as proved fact by relying on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi referred above.

12. In view of the above judgment and by considering the facts of complaint and by taking note of annexure documents produced and also by applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble NCDRC, New Delhi, the Commission has no hesitation to hold that there is clear deficiency which is rendered by the OP during the course of service to the complainant, for which OP is  held liable to pay the claim made by the complainant  along with other reliefs which is granted in the complaint. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in Partly Affirmative.

13. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
2.  The OP is   directed pay a sum of Rs.75,512/- along with interest at 6% p.a. from 13.11.2023 till payment of entire amount to the complainant.
3. OP is directed  to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service, compensation of Rs.5,000/-for pain and sufferings  and Rs.10,000/- towards  cost of the proceedings.
4. The OP shall comply this  order within 45 days from the date of this order.
5. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 28^th June 2024)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

     (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)                   (SHRINIDHI.H.N)            

                  MEMBER                                        MEMBER             

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri R.Narayan-who being the complainant.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit: Nil

Documents produced by the OP: Nil

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

     (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)                   (SHRINIDHI.H.N)            

        MEMBER                                        MEMBER                   

SKA*