Date of Filing:18.12.2007<br /> Date of Order: 04.04.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 2521 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> <br /> V.V. Upadhyaya,<br /> Advocate, <br /> S/o P.V. Upadhyaya,<br /> No.526, HMT Layout,<br /> Ganganagar, Bangalore-560 032. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. M/s Professional Couriers,<br /> No.195, Margosa Road,<br /> Malleswaram, Bangalore-560 055,<br /> Represented by its Managing Director.<br /> <br /> 2. Sri. Umesh,<br /> The Consumer Care Manager and Officer in-charge,<br /> M/s Professional Couriers,<br /> Mission Road, Bangalore-560 027. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.12,020/- for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant handed over a cover on 21/6/2007 to the at the office near R.T. Nagar, Bangalore containing a letter and document addressed to one Prakash Suvarna, Advocate, Karkala. The agent collected Rs.20/- from the complainant for sending the cover to the addressee. The cover containing valuable documents on a stamp paper of Rs.1,000/- and also letter. The cover has been reached the addressee at least on 23/6/2007. Complainant shocked and suffered mental agony due to negligence of the opposite party. Complainant made several enquiries by phone and also personally. He was informed that the cover was lost and the opposite party could not hand over the same to the addressee. Complainant ultimately got issued legal notice and demanded for compensation and costs. The opposite party failed to comply with the demand. Therefore, the complainant approached the Forum on account of the deficiency of service. The complainant has suffered inconvenience and mental agony. The complainant in all claimed Rs.12,095/- from the opposite party with costs and interest. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite parties. They have put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version. The opposite parties denied that opposite party is not in receipt of legal notice. The opposite party is governed by the carriers act and as per sec.3 of the act unless and until the value of the consignment is declared at the time of booking, the carriers liability is limited to Rs.100/-. In case of non-delivery or delay in delivery of the consignment the compensation is limited to Rs.100/-. The opposite party denied deficiency in service. <br /> 3. Both the parties filed affidavit evidence. Arguments heard.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that there <br /> was deficiency in service on the part of opposite <br /> parties? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for <br /> compensation?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. The complainant is an advocate. I have gone through the complaint, affidavit evidence and the documents. The complainant has produced the receipt of opposite party dated 21/6/2007. By this receipt it is very clear that the opposite party has received consignment to be delivered to one Prakash Suvarna of Karkala and the name of complainant V.V. Upadhyaya, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore-32 is also shown in the said receipt. The opposite party has received Rs.20/- towards charges from the complainant. The complainant has also produced copy of legal notice sent to the opposite party before filing the complaint. The opposite party has also produced postal acknowledgement to show that the legal notice was served on the opposite party. By the documentary evidence produced by the complainant it has been established beyond doubt that the complainant had given consignment to the opposite party to be delivered to the addressee. The burden now shifts on the opposite party to show that the consignment had been delivered to the addressee. Admittedly, the opposite party has not produced any records or documents to show that the consignment had reached the addressee or delivered the same to the addressee. It is not the case of the opposite party that the consignment received by the complainant had been promptly delivered to the addressee. Therefore, by the defence version it is very clear that the consignment received by the opposite party has not been delivered to the addressee. Therefore, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. On behalf of opposite party one Mr. Umesh, Manager, Professional Couriers has filed his affidavit. In this affidavit he has stated that he never received any consignment and consignment note is created one for the purpose of filing case. Further, in the affidavit Mr. Umesh stated that opposite party not in receipt of legal notice. By the documentary proof or evidence produced by the complainant it is very clear that the complainant had given a consignment to the opposite party on 21/6/2007 and charges of Rs. 20/- was collected. But the Manager of Professional Couriers Mr. Umesh has filed a false affidavit that consignment was not received and consignment note is created for the purpose of the case. Because of this false affidavit the opposite party must be penalized heavily. The complainant is an advocate belonging to a noble profession, he cannot file a false affidavit and case against the opposite party. It is very surprising that how the complainant can create the consignment note. The defence taken by the opposite party is absolutely false. Such kind of defence is not only liable to be rejected but it should be penalized heavily for misleading the Forum. The opposite party should have come with a clear picture and could have expressed regret for not delivering the consignment to the addressee. In spite of that the opposite party has taken a very untenable and unacceptable defence. Therefore, on this count itself the opposite party should be directed to pay compensation and exemplary cost. The opposite party has taken defence that as per the carriers Act the liability is limited Rs.100/-. This may be a statutory liability. But the Forum is not prevented in granting compensation to the complainant for the mental agony, inconvenience, tension and loss of time and energy in making enquiries. The Forum has got all the powers to impose costs and also grant compensation to the complainant apart from the statutory liability under the Carrier Act. In this case, in view of the false defence and affidavit filed by the opposite party, I feel the opposite party is liable to be penalized with exemplary cost of Rs.5,000/- and the opposite party shall also to be directed to pay compensation Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony, inconvenience, tension etc.,. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant and costs of Rs.5,000/- and in all the opposite party has to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. The opposite parties are directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of this order directly to the complainant by way of D.D or cheque with intimation to this Forum. If the opposite parties fails to pay the award amount within 30 days, the amount carries interest at 10% p.a from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> 7. The copy of this Order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge.<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 4TH DAY OF APRIL 2008.<br /> Order accordingly <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> I concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br />