Date of Filing 11.12.2020
Date of Disposal: 18.03.2024
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA. ML, Ph.D (Law), …….PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL, ……MEMBER-I
THIUR.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, (ICWA), BL., ……MEMBER-II
RBT/CC.No.66/2024
THIS MONDAY, THE 18th DAY OF MARCH 2024
M/S. Metha Electric Corporation,
Rep. by its Proprietor Dinesh Metha,
No.50, Armenian Street,
1st Floor, ( Opp to Catholic Centre),
Chennai 600 001. ......Complainant.
//Vs//
M/s. City Express Parcel Services,
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory R.Baskaran,
No.4, Narayanappa Street,
Mannadi, Chennai 600 001. ……Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.A.Gopinath, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : Mrs.R.Angalaparameswari, Advocate.
This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.43/2021 and transferred to this commission by the administrative order in RC.No.J1/3145/2023 dated 09.11.2023 of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as RBT/CC.No.66/2024 and this complaint coming before us finally on 03.03.2024 in the presence of M/s.A.Gopinath, counsel for the complainant and Mrs.R.Angalaparameswari, Kumar, counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY Tmt. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in not delivering the parcel booked by the complainant along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss for non delivery of the parcel and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
2. It was the case of the complainant that he booked a parcel vide invoice No.00144 on 25.05.2020 with the opposite party namely M/s. City Express Parcel Services to deliver the same to NAVA BHARATH ELECTRICALS at BANGALORE. At the time of booking the complainant had disclosed the contents of the parcel and also the value of the goods contained in the parcel as Rs.69,327/-. The said parcel was not delivered to NAVA BHARATH ELECTRICALS, BANGALORE till date. The complainant had several times requested the opposite party through email messages to take necessary action to deliver the parcel for which the opposite party stated that due to the pandemic Covid-19 lockdown all the movements were restricted and also requested to wait for some time to trace out the consignment for delivery. Due to non delivery of the parcel within the stipulated time, the complainant’s customers and the NAVA BHARATH ELECTRICALS BANGALORE purchased the goods ordered by them from outsiders and also expressed their unwillingness to continue any business with them and cancelled the booking orders. Thus it was submitted that the opposite party did not take any action to trace out the parcel to deliver the same either to the complainant’s customer or to return to the complainant till date. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned above.
The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-
3. The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending inter alia that the complainant disclosed neither the contents of parcel nor the value of the parcel. The complainant parcel value was Rs.500/- which was acknowledged by the complainant in the L.R. Moreover as per the terms and conditions the maximum liability was Rs.2000/-. Inspite of the same, the complainant had claimed exorbitantly which was highly arbitrary. The opposite party admits that they replied by text message and by mail and had thus proved they took duty and care to their customers. The opposite party assured that they would conduct inspection, enquiry etc, to find out the parcel. Because of the pandemic and due to inadequate staff still tracing the parcel works was on going on. Hence the opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service. Further, complainant was not a consumer. Their liability was only to the maximum of Rs.2,000/- per consignment for any loss. Hence, there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Complainant had failed to prove any loss or damage thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A7 were submitted. The opposite party filed proof affidavit but no documents was filed on their side.
Points for consideration:-
1) Whether the act of opposite party in not delivering the parcel booked by the complainant to be delivered to Navabharath Electricals at Bangalore amounts to deficiency in service and whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
2) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party. On the side of complainant it was submitted that their written arguments may be treated as oral arguments and hence we considered the written arguments filed by the complainant as oral arguments to decide the complaint on merits.
6. The crux of the complainant’s case is that he booked a parcel with the opposite party containing certain goods worth of Rs.69,327/- to be delivered to Navabharath Electricals at Bangalore on 25.05.2020. However till today the same has not been delivered inspite several efforts taken by the complainant with the opposite party thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.
7. On the other hand, the opposite party argued that the complainant had not mentioned about the details and value of the goods sent in the parcel booked with them. Further it was also argued that as per their terms and conditions they are liable only for Rs.2,000/- and hence the compensation claim by the complainant could not be granted.
8. We perused the entire pleadings and material evidences submitted by both parties and we deduce the following factual reasonings;
a) When the factum of booking was not disputed by the opposite party, as per the agreed contractual terms in the receipt of the charges, the opposite party ought to have delivered the goods safely, at the agreed place, in time, to the proper person and in proper manner. However, the parcel was not delivered till today and no plausible explanation was given for non delivery.
b) The opposite party except citing the reason i.e., Covid-19 time, did not offer any proper explanation for the loss of goods. In Ex.A3, in the reply email the only reason found is that due to prevailing Pandemic COVID – 19 lockdown restricting the movement of persons due to which their Technicians not able to go to the branch resulting in the delay. It was the only reason cited in all the reply emails sent by the opposite party. No proof was submitted by the opposite party that they took any efforts to trace out the parcel. Merely stating Pandemic lockdown as the reason for non delivery will not absolve the liability of the opposite party from delivering the goods booked with them on receipt of certain charges.
c) Though it is contended by the opposite party that the complainant failed to mention about the value of the goods sent, it is very clearly seen vide Ex.A1 the Tax Invoice issued by the complainant to the consignee, the NAVBHARATH ELECTRICALS to whom the parcel was sent dated 25.05.2020 that the goods are of worth Rs.69,327/- which was not disputed by the opposite party.
d) Though it was contended by the opposite party that goods of high value ought to have been sent through courier the same does not constitute a valuable defence when they have booked the parcel knowing well about the value of the goods.
e) The opposite party failed to provide any proper acceptable reasoning for the loss of goods such as the goods got lost due to any natural calamities or by act of God etc. Therefore the opposite party failing to give any proper explanation constitutes a clear deficiency in service on their part.
Thus for the above reasonings we hold that when the opposite party undertook to deliver the goods booked with them they ought to have delivered the goods without any delay to the proper person as per the agreed contractual terms for which they had received the consideration/booking amount. In such facts and circumstances when the service rendered by the opposite party is not proper we hold that the opposite party had committed clear deficiency in service. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.
Point No.2:-
9. As it is amply proved that the opposite party till today had not returned the goods to the complainant nor delivered the same to the consignee and thus had committed deficiency in service resulting in damage to the complainant, we are of the view that he should be adequately compensated along with payment of the value of consignment. Thus we award a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered by him along with payment of value of the consignment Rs.69,327/-. Though it is claimed by the complainant that due to non delivery of the consignment to the consignee in appropriate time they met with huge loss in their business bookings, no evidence was produced by them to substantiate the same and hence we are not awarding any compensation towards loss of business. We award Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them
a) To pay the cost of consignment Rs.69,327/- (Rupees sixty nine thousand three hundred twenty seven only) within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
c) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten 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 President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 18th day of March 2024.
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 | 25.05.2020 | Tax Invoice. | Xerox |
Ex.A2 | 25.05.2020 | Luggage slip issued by the opposite party. | Xerox |
Ex.A3 | …………….. | Email messages sent between the complainant and the opposite party. | Xerox |
Ex.A4 | 07.09.2020 | Complainant sent notice to the opposite party with acknowledgment card. | Xerox |
Ex.A5 | 14.10.2020 | Opposite party sent reply notice. | Xerox |
Ex.A6 | 05.11.2020 | Rejoinder notice sent to the opposite party with acknowledgment card. | Xerox |
Ex.A7 | ……………… | Affidavit filed under section 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act. | Xerox |
-Sd- -Sd- -Sd-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT