N.S.Balasubramanian, yagava Enterprises, filed a consumer case on 04 Aug 2016 against M/s.S.T.Courier, in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 24/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Sep 2016.
Complaint presented on: 22.01.2013
Order pronounced on: 11.08.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L., PRESIDENT
TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L., MEMBER II
THURSDAY THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2016
C.C.NO.24/2013
N.S.Balasubramanian,
Yagava Enterprises,
Old No.9, New No.11, Noor Veeraswamy Street,
Nungambakkam,
Chennai – 600 034.
..... Complainant
..Vs..
No.167, Valluvar Kottam High Road, SFI Complex, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.
Corporate Office at, No.199, Hariyan Street, C.Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 043.
|
| |
.....Opposite Parties
|
|
Date of complaint 31.01.2013
Counsel for Complainant : S.Siva Shankar
Counsel for opposite parties : M/s. M.Jaikumar
O R D E R
BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,
This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.
1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:
The Complainant availed the service of the Opposite Party to send ink cartridges consignment of 3 numbers to M/s. Real Print Technologies, No.3318/2A, Kucha Jalal Bukar, New Delhi 110 002. The Complainant booked a consignment on 09.04.2012 for the value of Rs.23,900 weighing 3 kilograms Cartridges to be delivered to M/s.Real Print Technologies, at New Delhi and he also paid service charges of Rs.120/-. Likewise he booked another consignment weighing 2.5 kilograms for the value of Rs.24,100/- for delivery to the consignee and also paid service charges of Rs.75/- and an another consignment booked on 04.06.2012 weighing 10 kilograms for the value of Rs.30,000/- and paid service charges of Rs.400/-. On receipt of information the consignments was not delivered to the consignee, the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties office asked them to furnish the proof of delivery of the consignment. The Complainant also issued legal notice dated 02.09.2012. However, the Opposite Parties have not produced any proof of delivery for 3 consignments to the Complainant. The non delivery of consignments put to mental agony and also loss to the Complainant. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to pay the value of consignments, compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.
2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:
The consignment booked with the Opposite Parties would be delivered in normal course within 24 hours in the local area and to the other states within 3 days. If the first consignment not delivered within 3 days, the Complainant would not have booked the 2nd consignment and likewise 3rd consignment after 45 days. Hence it is clear that the Complainant is making false claim in the Complaint. If any loss or damages the claim should be in writing within 30 days of shipment as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the invoice. The proof of delivery would be given, if the consignor demands the same within 30 days of booking and further they could also trace the goods through the investigation staff and if it is not traced they will prefer the Complaint for missing goods. The Complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and hence the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:
1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?
4. POINT NO :1
The Complainant booked 3 number of consignments containing cartridges to the consignee M/s. Real Print Technologies, No.3318/2A, Kucha Jalal Bukar, New Delhi through the Opposite Parties service provider on 09.04.2012,19.04.2012 and 04.06.2012 for the total value of Rs.78,000/- and he had also paid service charges under Ex.A2 receipts for the said consignments.
5. According to the Complainant the consignee at New Delhi informed him that he had not received the consignments and immediately he contacted the 1st Opposite Party where he booked the consignment to provide proof of delivery and however the Opposite Parties have not provided the proof of delivery even after issuance of Ex.A1 notice and hence he had filed this Complaint for compensation. The Opposite Parties replied that normally the local consignments would be delivered within 24 hours and for the other states the consignment would be delivered in 3 days and the 1st consignment is not delivered within 3 days the Complainant would not have booked the 2nd consignment after 10 days and the 3rd consignment after 45 days and this fact establishes that the Complainant has come with false claim.
6. Ex.A2 proves that the Complainant paid service charges to the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party is the Corporate Office of the 1st Opposite Party. The Complainant marked Ex.A3 e-mail letters dated 28.01.2014 that the consignment have not been delivered by the consignee. The consignment booked in the month of April and June 2013. Ex.A4 letter dated 05.05.2012 addressed to the 1st Opposite Party requiring him to provide proof of delivery for the consignment booked on 09.04.2012 and 19.04.2012. When the April consignment itself not delivered by the Opposite Party, it is surprising to note that how the Complainant sent another consignment on 04.06.2012. Further no proof filed by the Complainant that Ex.A4 letter sent to the 1st Opposite Party. The Complainant sent Ex.A1 legal notice dated 02.09.2012 nearly after 4 months of Ex.A4 letter. The consignment relates to the year 2012 and its total value is Rs.78,000/-. Whereas in the legal notice the consignment total value mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/- in the year 2011. Further in the said notice the Complainant demanded proof of delivery in the month of June 2011 onwards. When the consignment was sent only in April and June 2012 how the proof of delivery for the said consignment could be demanded in the month of June 2011. Therefore it is crystal clear that the legal notice sent by the Complainant do not relate to the case in hand. Further Ex.A4 letter did not find a place in the subsequent legal notice in Ex.A1. Therefore Ex.A4 without acknowledgement establishes that the same is created document for the purpose of the case. Therefore we hold that the Complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands and he had no established that within the stipulated period, he had demanded proof of delivery for the consignment with the Opposite Party and hence it is held that the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service.
07. POINT NO :2
Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed without cost.
In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 11th day of August 2016.
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 dated 02.03.2012 Copy of Legal Notice
Ex.A2 dated NIL Copies of three courier receipts
Ex.A3 dated NIL E mail
Ex.A4 dated 05.05.2012 Yagava Enterprises
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
……NIL …….
|
| |
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.