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)

    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

 

WEDNESDAY THE 18^th  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 1^st opposite party                 : M/s. G.Saravanan

 

Counsel for 2^nd 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 2^nd Opposite Party wife Mrs. Tarabai and he is residing in the said house and doing trading business in the tenanted premises.  The 1^st Opposite Party is a service  provider. The 2^nd 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 1^st 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 1^st 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 2^nd Opposite Party without any instructions from the Complainant in whatsoever manner. The 1^st Opposite Party delivered the consignment to the wrong person (2^nd 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 1^st  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 1^st 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 2^nd 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 2^nd Opposite Party which is evident from the reply notice dated 22.02.2011 issued by the 2^nd 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 2^nd 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  2^nd OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant became a tenant under Mrs. Tarabai, the wife of the 2^nd 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 2^nd Opposite Party despite his differences with the Complainant received the parcel on being persuaded to receive the parcel by the delivery boy of the 1^st Opposite Party since the address given was of the 2nd Opposite Party. The 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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 2^nd 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/1^st Opposite Party and the 1^st 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 1^st Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party delivered the parcel to the 2^nd Opposite Party where the Complainant is  also residing.

          6. The 1^st 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 1^st Opposite Party delivered the returned parcel to the 2^nd Opposite Party instead to the Complainant. The Complainant also admits that the parcel was delivered to the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party also admits such delivery. The 1^st 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 2^nd Opposite Party is no way concerned with the consignment which was delivered to him by the 1^st Opposite Party. However, the 2^nd 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 2^nd Opposite Party received the parcel. Since the Complainant residing as a tenant in the 2^nd Opposite Party house, he ought not to have received the parcel by him as he is not the owner of the parcel. The 1^st Opposite Party stated in his written version that since the addressee was not available, he delivered the parcel to the 2^nd Opposite Party. Such stand of the 1^st Opposite Party that the addressee was not available and delivered to the 2^nd 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 2^nd Opposite Party to handover to the Complainant. Even in the written version or before this Forum the 1^st Opposite Party had not stated that he will collect the parcel from the 2^nd Opposite Party and hand it over to the Complainant.  Therefore, in the above circumstances the 1^st Opposite Party/ Service provider failed to deliver the parcel to the Complainant, we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service and as far as the 2^nd Opposite Party is concerned, he received the parcel when it was delivered to him by the 1^st Opposite Party man and therefore we hold that the 2^nd Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

8. POINT NO:2

          Admittedly the product is in the hands of the 2^nd Opposite Party and therefore it would be appropriate to order that the 1^st Opposite Party has to collect the same from the 2^nd Opposite Party and to deliver to the Complainant within a stipulated  period. Having the 1^st 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 1^st 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 2^nd Opposite Party is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is ordered to receive the parcel from the 2^nd Opposite Party and hand it over to the Complainant within a period of one month from the date of this order and the 1^st 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 2^nd Opposite Party is dismissed.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 18^th   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 2^nd Opposite Party

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

                                                Party

.

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT