BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 17 / 2009 TUESDAY THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011. V. Mohan, S/o. L. Vasu, Malliga Transport, No.4/1A Byepass Road, Vellore -4. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. M/s. K.V. Subba Rao, Transport Contractor, Muthukuru, Krishnapatnam Post, Nellore District (A.P.). 2. The Manager, The Professional Courier, No.1, New Byepass Road, Rathna Complex, Vellore. – 4. 3. The Manager, The Professional Courier, Regional Head Office, No.32, Thiru. Vi.Ka. Road, Royapettai, Chennai – 14. … Opposite parties. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 9.11..2011, in the presence of Thiru. P.K.Srilokesh, Advocate for the complainant and Opposite party-1 called absent and set exparte and Thiru. S.Varadhan, Advocate for the opposite parties-2 & 3, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is hire career. The 1st opposite party was engaged for consignment of coal for the purpose of melting iron in 5 lorries namely KAO4-A-2406, KAO4-A-2427, KAO4-A-2426, KAO4-A-2419 and TN23E-6557 on behalf of Fossil Logistics (P) Ltd., Chennai by the complainant. The goods carried for Fossil Logistics (P) Limited, Chennai was delivered to him by the complainant on 13.9.08 by the following invoice number 4712 to 4715 and invoice No.4857 through Malliga Transport. The complainant sent the courier receipt bearing No.004763694, dt.14.9.08 issued by the 2nd opposite party to the 1st opposite party for claiming the lorry freight. After sometimes as nothing was heard from the 1st opposite party the complainant made enquiry with the 2nd opposite party whether the freight receipt dt. 14.9.08 was delivered to the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party simply gave the reply that the cover bearing the Courier No.004763694 was delivered and gave a delivery sheet bearing No.1085 dt. 16.9.08 issued by the Professional Courier of Nellore. But the complainant pointed out that there was no particulars of delivery of the relevant goods entered in the delivery run sheet which related to some other transaction not relevant to the concerned goods. The Manager of 2nd opposite party wanted to confuse the complainant when he pointed out the delivery run sheet contained some other address of the consignor which is not a relevant one. Then the Manager of 2nd opposite party directed the complainant to contact professional courier office at Nellore and ascertain the fact of delivery of the receipt. On enquiry the complainant was informed by the Manager of the Professional Courier office at Nellore that on 24.10.08 at about 2.00 p.m. that the said cover was not received and advised the complainant to get duplicate copy to get his lorry freight since the original was lost. The complainant met the 1st opposite party in his office at 8.00 p.m and explained the things happened and got from the 1st opposite party the duplicate copies of documents of consignment of goods. Thereafter the complainant along with his lorry driver came back to Vellore and informed the 2nd opposite party about what happened. Thereafter the complainant with his driver hired private care on 30.10.08 and reached the Fossil Logistics (P) Ltd., at Chennai. The complainant obtained endorsement for having delivered the goods on the duplicate by the Fossil Logistics (P) Ltd. On 31.10.08 the complainant sent his driver to Nellore along with the said documents to get the lorry freight. The 1st opposite party receving the said documents paid Rs.6,510/- after deducting Rs.1000/- (Rs.200/- for each duplicate copy) from Rs.9510/- towards lorry freight. He was made to run for pillar to post to get his lorry freight as a result of the deficiency in service caused by the 2nd opposite party in his course of official duty disbursed by him under the 3rd opposite party. Had the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties were deligent in discharging their duty, there is no necessity for the deficiency in service taking place. It is significant to refer to letter dt. 24.10.08 addressed to M/s. K.V.Subba Rao, C & F Agent, Krishnapatnam; and letter dt. 24.10.08 addressed to Fossil Logistics (P) Ltd., Chennai to ascertain the fact that the opposite parties 2 and 3 are responsible for the deficiency caused and the monetary loss. The manager Professional Courier at Vellore gave this reply in reckless and impertinent manner. The complainant was treated without any respect and in an indecent manner. The letter dt. 8.11.08 addressed by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant clearly confirms the facts that the deficiency in service by the 2nd and 3rd opposite party. 2. He incurred the following expenses and the 2nd and 3rd opposite party are liable to pay the same. a) Train Fair from Katpadi to Nellore Rs. 144.00 b) Auto Fair to Courier Office at Nellore Rs. 30.00 c) Lunch Expenses Rs. 130.00 d) Auto Fair to Courier office and K.V. Subba Rao Office (UP and Down) Rs. 250.00 e) Night Tiffen Expenses Rs. 40.00 f) Train Fare from Nellore to Katpadi Rs. 126.00 g) Hire charges of Private car to Chennai to obtain seal on the duplicate copy (up and down) Rs.2400.00 h) Morning Tiffen and Noon meals Rs. 200.00 i) Driver Batta to go to Nellore Rs. 300.00 j) Amount deducted for issue of duplicate bill by the 1st opposite party. Rs.1000.00 -------------------------- Total Expenses Rs.4620.00 ------------------------- The claim Rs.50,000/- by way of damages from the 2nd and 3rd opposite party for the mental torture and physical strain caused by them due to deficiency of service incurred by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The opposite parties No.2 & 3 totally liable to pay Rs.54,620/- to the complainant. Therefore the complainant prays this Forum for directing the opposite parties 2 & 3 to pay the courier receipt amount of Rs.22/- and to pay a sum of Rs.4,620/- as compensation for the expenses incurred by the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the damages sustained by the complainant for his injury caused by way of mental torture and physical torture and to pay costs of this complaint. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party 2nd opposite party and adopted by the 3rd opposite party are as follows: The opposite parties denies all the allegations in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted herein and puts the complainants to strict proof of all the allegations not so admitted. If for any reason any of the allegations is not specifically denied the same will not amount to admission and the complainant is to prove those allegations also. Excepting the facts that there was a consignment entrusted to the opposite party viz., a cover addressed to No.1 referred to in the petition, the other allegations in the petition are not admitted. The complainant did not disclose the contents of the cover and therefore he will have to prove that it contained the so-called receipt. In fact as per the contract he should have to prove that it contained the so-called receipt. Since the couriers are not responsible for the contents it is rather difficult to accept that the said cover contained the said receipt. Therefore the opposite party emphatically denies the allegations made in the notice under reply. As per the contract, accepted by the complainant the courier service is not liable to pay any loss etc. during transit the amounts claimed by the complainant excepting a sum of Rs.100/-. The receipt given to the complainant filed and relied on makes it very clear and there is a concluded contract and therefore the opposite party are right when they replied that they are liable to the tune of only Rs.100/- in this case the complainant has been properly replied and as admitted by him he has taken the goods from No.1 and got the refund also. The amount deducted by No.1 referred in the petition is not the concern of opposite parties 2 and 3. If he is so advised the complainant may proceed against No.1 referred to in the complaint. It is rather strange that the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the so called ill-treatment. Since the same will not amount to deficiency in service within the purview of this act. The allegation made in para-6 of the complaint that the complainant is entitled to the sum of Rs.4320/- and as per the list annexed is untenable again which refers to lunch, auto fare, night Tiffin, higher charges for private car, driver batta etc. which will not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. Further many of them are not supported by the documentary evidence, and the documents filed are also cooked up for the occasion. It is also significant to note that the claim supports the defense by opposite parties 2 & 3, in the sense neither interest nor costs have been claimed. They are precluded from doing so at a latter stage. The consignment was delivered to the office opened by the 1st opposite party for the convenience in Nellore Mini Bye Pass Road, the consignment was also delivered on 14.9.08 to the said address. Therefore the claim of non-delivery does not arise at all. This was made very clear to the customer by the District Manager of the Courier Service, Nellore. They have also undertook to help of the complainant in getting a copy of the so called, the consignment receipt by introducing him to the president of the Association. On demand by the complainant the said Branch Office has also paid a sum of Rs.300/- towards the charges which he has claimed. Therefore the claim by the complainant once again for the same is illegal and unlawful, which only shows all is not well with the complainant. The complainant has absolutely no cause of action to maintain this application and the alleged cause of action is a myth. The complaint is also bad, since no relief is asked for against the 1st opposite party who has deducted Rs.1000/- according to the complainant and no explanation is given for this and on this ground alone, the complaint has got to be dismissed. 4. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 5. Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 6. POINT NO. a) The complainant contended that the complainant sent a cover contained lorry freight receipt to the 1st opposite party through the courier service of 2nd opposite party for claiming the lorry freight. For that the 2nd opposite party issued a receipt Ex.A6 bearing No.004763694, but the said cover contained lorry freight receipt was not delivered to the 1st opposite party. Further, the 2nd opposite party directed the complainant to contact professional courier office at Nellore and ascertain the fact of delivery of the receipt. On enquiry the complainant was informed by the Manager of the Professional Courier office at Nellore that on 24.10.08, that the said cover was not received. Then, the complainant along with his lorry driver came back to Vellore and informed the 2nd opposite party about the non delivery of receipt. Thereafter, the complainant and his driver came to Nellore along with the duplicate documents to get the lorry freight. Therefore, due to the deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd and 3rd opposite party, the complainant suffered monitory loss and mental agony. 7. The opposite parties contended that as per the contract accepted by the complainant the courier service is not liable to pay any loss etc. during transit the amounts claimed by the complainant excepting a sum of Rs.100/-. Further, the receipt Ex.A6 given to the complainant makes it very clear and there is a concluded contract and therefore the opposite party are right when they replied that they are liable to the tune of only Rs.100/- in this case the complainant has been properly replied and as admitted by him he has taken the goods from opposite party No.1 and got the refund also. Further the claim by the complainant once again for the same is illegal and unlawful, which only shows all is not will with the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. 8. It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant sent a cover contained lorry freight receipt to the 1st opposite party, through the courier service of 2nd opposite party, and said cover contained the freight receipt was not delivered to the 1st opposite party. From the perusal of Ex.A8 and Ex.A9, dt. 24.10.08 the letters issued by the Professional Courier office at Nellore, it is mentioned that the said courier document No.VLR-004763694, dt.14.9.08 was misplaced and request to give duplicate details to the party (complainant). The Manger of the 2nd opposite party has sent a letter Ex.A13, dt.8.11.08 to the complainant stated that the consignment No.VLR-004763694, Dt.14.9.08 addressed to 1st opposite party is not yet been traced at our end, If in case they find the missing consignment at any part of time they will deliver it to him at the earliest, and request the complainant to arrange for stop payment of the contents, if it contains any DD / Cheque and reconstruct the contents. Therefore it is clear that the Manger of the 2nd opposite party has admitted his negligence and deficiency in service by having lost the cover containing the lorry freight documents of the complainant. 9. When the complainant contacted the 2nd opposite party about the non-delivery of the said cover contain the lorry freight document, the Manager of the 2nd opposite party directed the complainant to contact professional courier office at Nellore and ascertain the fact of delivery of the receipt. Accordingly, on enquiry the complainant was informed by the Manager of the Professional Courier office at Nellore on 24.10.08 the said cover was not received, and advised the complainant to get duplicate copy to get his lorry freight, since the original was lost. Then, the complainant and his lorry driver came back to Vellore and informed the 2nd opposite party about the above facts. Therefore, they got the duplicate freight documents and came to the Manager of the 1st opposite party at Nellore and collected his lorry freight charges. 10. Hence, taking into account with regard to the contention of the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 & Ex.B1, we have come to the conclusion that the attitude of the opposite parties 2 & 3 herein, would have certainly committed deficiency in service. In such circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties No. 2 & 3 herein. Hence we answer this point (a) is accordingly. 11. POINT NO. (b): In view of our findings on point No.(a), the opposite parties 2 & 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for expenses incurred by the complainant. Hence we answer this point (b) is also accordingly. 12. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 2 and 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for expenses incurred by the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards the cost of this complaint. The opposite parties 2 and 3 are also hereby directed to pay the above said amounts within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant is also entitled to interest on the above said sum @ 9% p.a. from the date of default till the date of payment. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1- 12.9.08 - X-copy of Invoice No.4712 Ex.A2- 12.9.08 - X-copy of Invoice No.4713 Ex.A3- 12.9.08 - X-copy of invoice No.4714 Ex.A4- 12.9.08 - x-copy of invoice No.4715 Ex.A5- 13.9.08 - X-copy of invoice No.4857 Ex.A6- 14.9.08 - Courier Receipt. Ex.A7- 16.9.08 - X-copy of delivery run Sheet. Ex.A8- 24.10.08 - Letter issued to K.V.Subba Rao. Ex.A9- 24.10.08 - Letter issued to Fossil Logistics (P) Ltd., Chennai Ex.A10- 24.10.08 - Railway ticket. Ex.A11-30.10.08 - X-copy of cash bill of taxi rent paid. Ex.A12- 31.10.08 - Amount Deducted Receipt. Ex.A13- 8.11.08 - Letter from Professional Courier Vellore to the complainant. Ex.A14- 1.12.08 - X-copy of legal notice. Ex.A15- 17.12.08 - Reply notice. Opposite party’s Exhibits: Ex.B1- 18.12.08 - X-copy of letter to the Customer Care Incharge Professional Courier, Vellore. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
