BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL BENCH DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSURU.
Consumer Complaint (C.C.)No. 1134/2016
Complaint filed on 25.02.2016
Date of Judgement.14.12.2016
PRESENT : 1. Shri Ramachandra M.S., B.A., LL.B.,
PRESIDENT
2. Shri Thammanna,Y.S., B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Complainant/s : Sri. N.Vijayan
S/o Sri N. Nadaraja Pilai,
R/at 66,13th main, Boghadi
Village, Mysore-26.
(Sri Apoorvananda.K., Advocate)
V/s
Opponent /s : 1.Professional Courier
# 51, Poorna Prasad Plaza,
Ground Floor, 5th cross, 8th main,
Saraswathipuram.
Mysuru-09.
2. Professional Courier
#25, Shop #1, 1st cross, Basaceshwara Nagar New kantharaj urs road,
Mysuru-22.
(Sri. Kumar Swamy.S., Advocate)
Nature of complaint | : | Deficiency in service |
Date of filing of complainant | : | 25.02.2016 |
Date of Issue notice | : | 11.04.2016 |
Date of Order | : | 14.12.2016 |
Duration of proceeding | : | 8 Months 3 days |
SHRI RAMACHANDRA . M.S., PRESIDENT
JUDGEMENT
The complainant filed the complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant states that opposite parties are in business of maintaining courier service hearing that this opposite parties have good service the complainant decided to avail the service and visited the opposite party no 1 on 27.11.2015 and booked a package to central university, Gulbarga, The said package contained an application for the post of Assistant Professor, Having enquired several times. Opposite party no .1 assured complainant that it would be delivered well within time as the said package was under the special delivery scheme called “PRO PREMIUM” sponsored by professional courier.
3. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 250 for the said package and again enquired whether it would be properly delivered, to which the opposite party no .1 again assured complainant that it would be appropriately taken care of.
4. The complainant later took the matter to be taken care of and forgot about the issue. But he was called up by the second opposite party on 20th January 2016 and asked to visit their office. The complainant went to the office t be rudely told that his package has come back.
5. The explanation given here was that the special service under which the said package was booked was not applicable to Gulbarga. On being asked why this information was not provided earlier, the first opposite party stated that this information was not known to them. Opposite party no.2 also refunded the Rs.250/- spent on the courier in an attempt to avoid liability.
6. The opposite party while booking the courier order was only thinking of the potential business and was not aware of weather such service was applicable to Gulbarga or not. The complainant was therefore denied of the said post of Assistant professor in Gulbarga hence being robbed of gainful employment by the negligence of the said opposite parties.
7. A notice was sent by the complainant on 01.02.2016 to which the said opposite parties have not tendered any reply.
8. Therefore the complainant prays that this honourable forum be pleased to declare deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and to grant damages of Rs. 50,000/- and other relief as prayed in the claim. Hence this complaint.
9.The opposite party has filed version by stating that the complainant has availed the service by booking a package to central university Gulbraga. But he denied the contents of package as claimed by complainant. The opposite party admits that complaint has paid for booking courier service and the consignment would be delivered to the consignee safely.
10. The opposite party denies that the averments made in para no .3 of the complaint that the complainant paid for booking courier service and the consignment would be appropriately taken care and would be delivered to the consignee is true.
11. The averments made in para no .4 of the complaint took the matter to be taken care of and forgotten about the issue and then called up the 2nd opposite party on 20.01.2016 and asked him to visit his office and he went to the office of opposite party and this opposite party be have rudely towards the complainant and his consignment is specifically denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of same.
12. The averments made in para no.5 of the complaint that an explanation given to him that special service booked by him is not applicable to Gulbarga is false. It is further false that on being asked why the information was not provided earlier. It is false that the opposite party no.2 stated to him that the information not known to them. It is true that the opposite party has refunded the amount to the complainant after returning the package, as the consignee has refused to receive the consignment on tendering the same. The amount is refunded to the complainant as the complainant started Galata in front of the customers. It is false that the amount is refunded to avoid liability as there is no such liability casted upon the opposite parties to deliver parcel to the consignee though the consignee refused to receive the consignment.
13.It is false and incorrect that there is no pro premium service to the Gulbarga. It is false that therefore the complainant denied of the post of Assistant professor in Gulbarga. It is false that the opposite party robbed of the gainful employment of the complainant and the same is denied on the negligence of the opposite party. It is false the complainant got issued a legal notice and the same is not replied.
14. When the complainant booked courier in the collection centre on 27.11.2015 to Gulbarga in the PRO Premium booking service of this opposite party on the risk of cognisor the terms of the consignment are printed on the receipt which is issued to complaint on accepting terms of the consignment printed of receipt issued to complainant and explained to him on accepting terms only complainant has booked the consignment of opposite party.
15. It is submitted that the letter booked by the complainant is not insured. The opposite party has no knowledge regarding the contents of consignment . As the deliver boys made all effects to deliver the same to addressee he has refused to receive the parcel letter hence return the same to consignor . Hence there is no negligence on the part of opposite party. As these opposite parties have made all efforts to deliver the consignment to the addressee went in vain.
16. There is no deficiency in rendering service by this opposite party to the complainant. The complainant has come up with false complaint suffering the truth to have unlawful gain. The opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complainant.
17. The complainant in support of his case has filed his chief examination affidavit and also filed some documents and written arguments. The opposite party have filed their version and chief examination affidavit along with written argument in support of defence.
18. Heard arguments.
19. The points that arise for our consideration are;
- Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP for not delivering the parcel of complainant?
- What order?
20. Our answer to the above points is as follows;
- Point No.1: In the Partly Affirmative.
- Point No.2: As per final order for the following;
REASONS
21. Point No.1:-It is not disputed that opposite party are in the business of running couriers service having there office at Mysuru, The complainant being the consumer has approached the opposite party to avail the courier service and visited their office on 27.11.2015 and booked a package to central university Gulbarga. The said package contains an application for the post of Assistant professor having enquired several time regarding the safe delivery of the package the complainant booked the same through opposite party under pro premium special package he has paid sum of Rs 250/- towards charges for courier service to the opposite party. The complainant by producing the bill proved that their exists the transaction between complainant and opposite party. The complainant availed service of opposite party by paying service charge of Rs 250/- it is evident from annexure bill produced it is apparent that the service is under special package of pro premium scheme is very clearly establish by complainant.
22. On 20.01.2016 when the opposite party called complainant at their office and informed that the package sent to Gulbarga is returned as they have no courier service to Gulbarga for that reason they are unable to send the package and refund the service charges of Rs. 250/- here the opposite party knowingly there is no service to Gulbarga have accepted the package of complainant to send to Gulbarga this facts shows the attitude of opposite part the way in which they are rendering service to their consumer.
23. The complainant on 01.02.2016 issued legal notice to opposite party calling for his reply to the events in respect of non deliver of parcel package which is sent to Gulbarga through opposite party courier office. Even after receipt of notice the opposite party never cared to neither reply nor try to settle the issue amicably this shows gross negligence behaviour of the opposite party towards aggrieved complainant.
24. The opposite party in their defence have admitted the transaction between complainant they state that their boys in spite of best efforts to deliver the package to Gulbarga. The consignee refused to receive, hence parcel returned to opposite party. And in his version the opposite party clearly admitted that they have refunded the courier charge of Rs.250/- to complainant this fact prove that they failed to give proper service to complainant and due to their mistake they were unable to deliver the package to booked address. Here refund of courier charges is an indirect admission of their failure to discharge their part of duty. Another point that opposite party contends when they try to deliver the package to the addressee they refused to receive from courier service. If at all the version of opposite party is to be believed, why opposite party did not produce the un severed package before the forum nothing has prevented him from doing so. Another important fact that if at all the opposite party and their men have made best efforts to deliver the package to its destination if consignee refused to receive the same, when opposite party discharged his duty there was no occassion for him to refund the courier charges to the complainant. When he has not committed any mistake while discharging his duty, he is not under any obligation to refund the service charges received by him for providing service to complainant. Here the opposite party by refunding charges has admitted deficiency in service to the complainant.
25. The opposite party are practising un fair trade practice by their act and conduct they are also giving false assurance to attract the customer here it is a contractual obligation between complainant and opposite party one has to pay to avail service another has to discharge their part of duty to see that it reached the destination. Here opposite party have very clearly violated the terms of contract to discharge their part of duty thereby the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
26. For the above reasons by looking at the facts and documents produced by complainant, proved his case beyond reasonable doubt and also complainant proves that there is a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party by doing unfair trade practice.
27. According this forum we answered Point no.1 in the partly affirmative and pass the following:
28. Point no.2:- For the above discussion we here by proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The complaint is hereby allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is herby directed to pay compensation of Rs.
5,000/- to the complainant of within 30 days of this order.
with interest at the rate of 12% p.a from the date 27.11.2015
till payment is made
3.The Opposite party shall pay of Rs. 2,000/- towards mentally
agony to complainant within 30 days of this order.
4.The opposite party shall pay of Rs 3,000/- towards cost of the
proceedings to the complainant with in 30 day of this order.
5. In case of default the opposite party shall pay to Rs 100/- per day
as penalty to complainant un till compliance made.
4. In case of default of this order the opposite party shall under go
imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act
1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties as per Rules.
(Dictated to the stenographer transcribed , typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on the 14th December 2016)
Shri Thammanna Y.S., Shri Ramachandra M.S.,
Member. President.
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of complainant:
CW-1 : N . VIJAYN
Documents marked on behalf of complainant:
Annexure.1 : Receipts ( Professional courier )
Annexure.2 legal notice dated 01.02.2016
Annexure.3 : postal acknowledgements
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF OP.
Evidence by way of affidavit on behalf of OP:
OP-1 : UDYASHANKAR .N
Documents marked on behalf of Op.:
Nil
Shri Thammanna Y.S., Shri Ramachandra M.S.,
Member. President.
