Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

24/2013

N.S.Balasubramanian, yagava Enterprises, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.S.T.Courier, - Opp.Party(s)

S.Siva Shankar

04 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

                                                             Complaint presented on:  22.01.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  11.08.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd 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 2^nd consignment and likewise 3^rd 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 1^st 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 1^st consignment is not delivered within 3 days the Complainant would not have booked the 2^nd  consignment after 10 days and the 3^rd 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 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the Corporate Office of the 1^st 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 11^th 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