Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

230/2013

M.Mani,S/o.Munusamy,proprietor of M/s.Asian Traders having shop at - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Trackon Couriers Pvt.Ltd.,Rep by its Managing Director - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.R.Thanjan-com

18 May 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on  :  22.11.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on  :  18.05.2016

 

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

 

WEDNESDAY THE 18th  DAY OF MAY 2016

 

C.C.NO.230/2013

 

M.Mani,

S/o.Munusamy,

Proprietor of M/s. Aasian Traders,

Having shop at:

No.530, M.K.N. Road, Alandur,

Chennai – 600 016.

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.M/s. Trackon Couriers Pvt.Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

No.194, Annapillai Street, STS Complex,

Broadway, Chennai – 600 001.

 

2.B.Shanthi Lal,

Partner of Shanthi Jewellery,

Shop at No.530, M.K.N. Road,

Alandur, Chennai – 600 016.

 

 

                                                                                                                                  .....Opposite Parties

 

    

 

Date of complaint                                :  04.12.2013

Counsel for Complainant                     : M/s.R.Thanjan

Counsel for 1st opposite party                 : M/s. G.Saravanan

 

Counsel for 2nd Opposite Party                    : M/s. M.Vaidyanathan & M.Deepa

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 becomes a tenant under the 2nd Opposite Party wife Mrs. Tarabai and he is residing in the said house and doing trading business in the tenanted premises.  The 1st Opposite Party is a service  provider. The 2nd Opposite Party is the landlord of the Complainant. The Complainant sent a cutting tool machine weighing  about 6 kms worth about Rs.10,000/- through the 1st Opposite Party courier office to M/s Janak Enterprises at  Bhewandi,  Maharastra to his customer on 15.10.2010 and he also paid a sum of Rs.240/- towards charges. The said parcel was not delivered to the consignee due to some mistake in the address and hence the same could not be delivered, as expected by the Complainant. Since, the same was not delivered to the consignee by the 1st Opposite Party and the same has to be returned to the consigner i.e: the Complainant. However the same was not returned to the Complainant instead, it was delivered to the 2nd Opposite Party without any instructions from the Complainant in whatsoever manner. The 1st Opposite Party delivered the consignment to the wrong person (2nd Opposite Party) and who has also received the same with ulterior motive to make loss to the Complainant and thereby caused mental agony to the Complainant by committing Deficiency in Service. The Complainant also gave police Complaint and thereafter issued legal notice to the Opposite Parties. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties to return the parcel to the Complainant and also to pay compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.        

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1st  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          Admittedly, the Complainant alleged to have purchased the machinery for commercial purpose and as such the Complaint is not maintainable in law. The Complainant had availed the services of the 1st Opposite Party and in the normal course of his business in order to make profit and not for personal use and therefore the Complainant is barred from raising any claims against this Opposite Party. No cause of action has accrued in favour of the consumer protection laws and hence the Complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.  The courier/consignment booked by the Complainant could not be delivered as the addressee was not available. Hence the said consignment was returned to the Complainant which was duly received by the 2nd Opposite Party as the shop of the Complainant was said to be closed for about 6 months prior to February 2011. It also appears that there has been a dispute with regard to the tenancy between the Complainant and the 2nd Opposite Party which is evident from the reply notice dated 22.02.2011 issued by the 2nd Opposite Party and the other documents produced by the Complainant along with the Complaint. Hence the Complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum to wreck vengeance of the 2nd Opposite Party for which the Complainant has attempted to use the proceedings before this Hon’ble Forum as a tool. The Complainant ever declared the contents or value thereof in the consignment to be Rs.10,000/-. It is stated that no declaration was made by the Complainant at the time of booking its

Consignment regarding contents of the same, which is mandatory as per terms of booking of this Opposite Party and the same are printed on the reverse of the booking receipt issued to the Complainant.  

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  2nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant became a tenant under Mrs. Tarabai, the wife of the 2nd Opposite Party in respect of the premises bearing Door No.32. Nathed  Subedar Street, Alandur, Chennai – 16. The lease was for a period of 11 months commencing from 01.04.2010 and the monthly rent payable is Rs.2,500/-. Thus, the address given by the Complainant is wholly incorrect and it appears that the consignment was sent to 530 MKN Road. Alandur. Chennai – 16 only for the sole reason of harassing the Second Opposite Party. The Complainant admits that the parcel was not delivered due to a wrong address having been given. Unfortunately, for the reasons best known to the Complainant, he avoided receiving the same and taking pity on the young delivery boy, the 2nd Opposite Party despite his differences with the Complainant received the parcel on being persuaded to receive the parcel by the delivery boy of the 1st Opposite Party since the address given was of the 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party on several occasions personally attempted to hand over the parcel but the Complainant refused to receive it and lodged a Complaint with the local police station. On being summoned, the 2nd Opposite Party went to the police station and explained the facts and offered to hand over the parcel.  Being convinced with the explanation given by the 2nd Opposite Party, the police officials directed the Complainant to receive the parcel.  However he refused to receive the parcel and realizing that he had been exposed, he has now approached this Hon’ble Forum with false averments claiming a compensation which he is not entitled too. In short, the proceedings initiated before this Forum by the Complainant is a counter blast to the rent control proceedings filed against him. The Complaint is not maintainable and there is no Deficiency in Service by the 2nd Opposite Party in as much as the second Opposite Party was under no obligation to render any service to the Complainant. It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the Complaint with costs.  

4. 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?

5. POINT NO:1

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant is a tenant under the 2nd Opposite Party’s wife Mrs. Tarabai  and doing business in  the said house and he sent a parcel to M/s Janak Enterprises at Bhewandi, Maharastra which contains   a cutting tools machine weighing about 6kgs through the service provider/1st Opposite Party and the 1st Opposite Party to send the parcel collected a sum of Rs.240/- towards freight charges under Ex.A1  receipt and the said parcel was not delivered to the addressee due to some mistake in the address of the consignee and hence the parcel was returned to the 1st Opposite Party and the 1st Opposite Party delivered the parcel to the 2nd Opposite Party where the Complainant is  also residing.

          6. The 1st Opposite Party contended that the Complainant purchased the machinery for commercial purpose and therefore he cannot be considered as a Consumer. The Complainant is a proprietary concern. Such a proprietary concern’s earning is only for eking livelihood for him and for his family members and therefore in the circumstances it is held that the Complainant is a Consumer.    

          7. Admittedly the 1st Opposite Party delivered the returned parcel to the 2nd Opposite Party instead to the Complainant. The Complainant also admits that the parcel was delivered to the 2nd Opposite Party and the 2nd Opposite Party also admits such delivery. The 1st Opposite Party being the service provider who has collected the freight charges from the Complainant to send the parcel, on return of the parcel, he ought to have redelivered the parcel to the addressee i.e the Complainant.  The 2nd Opposite Party is no way concerned with the consignment which was delivered to him by the 1st Opposite Party. However, the 2nd Opposite Party stated in his written version that for the reason best known to the Complainant, he avoided receiving the parcel and taking pity on the young delivery boy the 2nd Opposite Party received the parcel. Since the Complainant residing as a tenant in the 2nd Opposite Party house, he ought not to have received the parcel by him as he is not the owner of the parcel. The 1st Opposite Party stated in his written version that since the addressee was not available, he delivered the parcel to the 2nd Opposite Party. Such stand of the 1st Opposite Party that the addressee was not available and delivered to the 2nd Opposite Party is not acceptable. Further the Complainant also gave Complaint to the police and even after that he has not made any attempt to receive the parcel from the 2nd Opposite Party to handover to the Complainant. Even in the written version or before this Forum the 1st Opposite Party had not stated that he will collect the parcel from the 2nd Opposite Party and hand it over to the Complainant.  Therefore, in the above circumstances the 1st Opposite Party/ Service provider failed to deliver the parcel to the Complainant, we hold that the 1st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service and as far as the 2nd Opposite Party is concerned, he received the parcel when it was delivered to him by the 1st Opposite Party man and therefore we hold that the 2nd Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

8. POINT NO:2

          Admittedly the product is in the hands of the 2nd Opposite Party and therefore it would be appropriate to order that the 1st Opposite Party has to collect the same from the 2nd Opposite Party and to deliver to the Complainant within a stipulated  period. Having the 1st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service by not delivering the parcel to the Complainant caused mental agony to him is acceptable and hence in this regard the 1st Opposite Party can be ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the 2nd Opposite Party is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 1st Opposite Party is ordered to receive the parcel from the 2nd Opposite Party and hand it over to the Complainant within a period of one month from the date of this order and the 1st Opposite Party is also ordered to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony,  besides a sum of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.  The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. The Complaint in respect of the 2nd Opposite Party is dismissed.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 18th   day of May 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 15.20.2010

Consignment receipt issued by the 1st Opposite Party’s Branch office to the Complainant

Ex.A2 dated  04.11.2010

Complainant’s police Complaint given to the Inspector of police, Alandur, Chennai – 16

Ex.A3 dated 07.12.2010

Complainant’s letter to the 1st Opposite Party’s branch office

Ex.A4 dated 15.12.2010

Complainant’s letter to the 1st Opposite Party’s branch office

Ex.A5 dated 24.01.2011

Complainant’s legal notice to the Opposite Parties

Ex.A6 dated NIL

A/D card

Ex.A7 dated 02.02.2011

Complainant’s Complaint to the commissioner of police, St.Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016.

Ex.A8 dated 22.02.2011

2nd Opposite Party’s reply notice to the Complainant

Ex.A9 dated 14.03.2011

Complainant’s rejoinder to the 2nd Opposite Party’s counsel

Ex.A10 dated NIL

A/D Card

  
  
  

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     The Complainant’s Parcel mentioned the Address

                                                of the 2nd Opposite Party

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Rental Agreement Complainant with 2nd Opposite

                                                Party

.

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.