DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala Dated this the 19th day of November, 2008 Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member C.C.No.121/2007 Elsy Thankachan, W/o.Thankachan Manuel, Christ Villa, Shoranur, Palakkad. - Complainant (By Adv.K.A.Stanly James) Vs 1. M/s.Professional Couriers, N.H.Bye pass Road, Chandranagar, Palakkad. (By Adv.Rajesh.M) 2. M/s.Professional Couriers, MS Chingal Building, 1st Floor, Opposite Bus Stand, Shoranur, Palakkad. - Opposite parties (By Adv.Rajesh.M) O R D E R By Smt.Seena.H, President The brief facts of the complaint is as follows: The complainant sent a sealed cover to her husband through the 2nd opposite party by courier. The cover contained a letter, hospital bills, petitioners photo and documents of property. When the complainant's husband received the cover through one Mathai it was seen open and subsequently closed by stapler pins. The contents of the cover was seen missing. Immediately the complainant informed the matter to the 2nd opposite party but no action was taken. 2nd opposite party is the franchise of the 1st opposite party. According to the complainant, the 2nd opposite party has sent the cover after removing the contents in it. The act of the opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency of service. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the loss and mental agony suffered. Notice was served on the opposite parties. Version filed. The main contentions of the opposite parties are as follows. The 1st opposite party in the complaint is not a necessary party. Complainant is bad for mis joinder. 2nd opposite party admits the fact that complainant has sent a sealed cover by way of courier through 2nd opposite party with consignment No.7365025. According to the 2nd opposite party the sealed cover was duly served on the addressee. As the residence of the addressee is in a rural place, one Mathai, on behalf of the addressee has collected the sealed cover. 2nd opposite party has no information regarding the contents of the cover. Further the cover produced by the complainant cannot hold the things mentioned in the complaint. Further a letter has been received from the complainant stating the loss of documents and an amount of Rs.1,000/- sent by way of courier through the 2nd opposite party. The act of sending money is illegal. According to opposite parties, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The evidence adduced consists of the proof affidavit and Ext.A1 and A2 on the side of the complainant. Ext.A2 was marked subject to proof. Proof affidavit and Ext.B1 and B2 was marked on the side of opposite parties. The issues for consideration are; 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. If so, what is the reliefs and cost? Issue No.1: The definite case of the complainant is that the documents of property, hospital bills, letters and photos sent through the 2nd opposite party, Professional Couriers was found to be missing when the same was received by the addressee. To prove the case, the complainant produced the receipt dt.15/09/2007 issued by the 2nd opposite party, wherein the consignment number is recorded as 7365025. This is marked as Ext.A1. The cover in the received state was marked as Ext.A2 subject to proof. It can be seen that the cover was opened and stapler pin was used to close it. 2nd opposite party states in the proof affidavit that the cover has been delivered to one Mathai, on behalf of the addressee. This is evident from Ext.B1. It was vehemently argued by the complainant that the delivery of cover to an unauthorised person by opposite party is illegal since there is no such direction given by her. No where in the complaint or in the proof affidavit complainant has stated that the cover was delivered to unauthorised person. Admittedly the cover was finally received by the addressee also. Further opposite party contents that the cover produced was not the one sent by the opposite party as it does not bear the consignment number and it is the usual practice to note it in the cover. This is clear from Ext.A2 that the consignment number is not noted in it. The complainant has not taken any steps to examine the person to whom the cover was delivered to ascertain true facts. There is no evidence to show that the contents of the cover has been disclosed to the opposite party. In the Ext.B2 letter, issued by the complainant to 2nd opposite party, it is specifically stated that an amount of Rs.1,000/- was also enclosed in the cover which is purely illegal. On examining the cover produced before us, which is of measurement 22.5 cm X 10 cm we are of the view that it cannot hold all the things mentioned in the complaint. From the available evidence on record, we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove her case. In such a circumstance, we cannot attribute deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of November, 2008 (Sd) Seena.H President (Sd) Preetha.G.Nair Member (Sd) Bhanumathi.A.K Member Appendix Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 Consignment receipt Ext.A2 - Cover Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Ext.B1 Copy of consignment receipt No.7365025 dt.15/09/07 Ext.B2 Letter dt.17/09/07 sent by complainant to 2nd opposite party Costs (Not allowed) Forwarded/By Order, Senior Superintendent
