BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 23^rd DAY OF JUNE 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct them to pay him a total sum of Rs.85,040/- for deficiency of service and cost of the litigation.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant sent an article to his relative at Chenganur in Kerala from Bangalore through OP for speedy dispatch as the OP is known for speedy dispatch of article throughout the Country and Abroad.  The complainant was convinced by the booking agent at Bangalore that the article would be delivered to the addressee in Chenganur within a maximum of two days from the date of booking.  That the article contained some documents pertaining to land property of the complainant, who is a senior citizen and based on the assurance the article was handed over to the booking agent of OP.  The delivery of the article would take maximum of two days from the date of booking.  However, to the surprise of the complainant the article did not reach the addressee within two days and ultimately the addressee received the article only on 19.09.2013.  The said cover contained most important documents with regard to land deal and because of the delay in delivery the complainant suffered huge loss as the purchaser of the property refused to adhere to the oral understanding.  The OP Company is solely responsible for the loss and harassment suffered by the complainant.

That the repeated enquires made with local office and with the Regional Office regarding to the delay did not yield any satisfactory result.  The OP was very negative in approach whenever the complainant contacted them.  Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint to the Regional Manager of OP at Bangalore on 26.09.2013 but the complainant did not get any response from the said Regional Manager to the said complaint.  The complainant having exhausted all the available remedies was compelled to approach the Forum for compensation and for deficiency of service on the part of OP.

For the reasons stated above, the complainant prays for an order directing the OP to refund him the services charge of Rs.40/- paid for the article, Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for hardship and financial loss suffered and to Rs.10,000/- towards cost of this litigation.  Thus, complainant prays for a total sum of Rs.85,040/- to be paid by the OP.   

3. In response to the notice issued OP entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

The OP is engaged in the courier business since for the last 25 years and has an impeccable track record of providing the best in class service to its clients.  That the complainant booked the consignment to be delivered to one Smt.Shyamala Devi at Chengannur, Kerala on 13.09.2013.  The contents of the documents were not disclosed to the OP while booking the consignment.  That the OP received the said consignment as a regular consignment.  Subsequent to that there was a public holiday in the state of Kerala due to ONAM festival on 16.09.2013.  That when delivery boy went to deliver the consignment, there was no one at home to receive the same and ultimately the consignment was delivered on 19.09.2013.  That there is no negligence on the part of the OP in delivering the consignment.  That there is no negligence on the part of the OP.  That the present complaint is filed by the complainant only with an intention to enrich himself at the cost of OP.  The OP never assured the complainant that the consignment will be delivered on the second day of booking.

The OP is governed by the Carriers Act and as per Section-3 of the Carriers Act, until and unless the value of the consignment is declared by the consignee at the time of booking, the carrier’s liability is limited to Rs.100/-.  That the OP has accepted the consignment with clear condition that in case of delay in delivery of the consignment the compensation payable is limited to Rs.100/-.  That the parties are bound by the said contract.  That there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Even otherwise the OP is bound to pay the declared value of the consignment as per the contract even if the consignment is lost in the transit.  Therefore, OP is not liable to pay the amount of compensation as claimed by the complainant or any amount exceeding Rs.100/-.

For the reasons stated above, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost.

4. After version was filed by OP the complainant was called upon to submit his evidence by way of affidavit.  Accordingly the complainant submitted his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  Thereafter OP got filed the affidavit evidence of their Manager (Investigation) Mr.T.G Gopinath in support of the averments made in the complaint.  The complainant has produced certain documents to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint.

5. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, averments made in the version, sworn testimony of both parties and the documents filed.  We have heard the oral arguments advanced by the complainant.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8.  Admittedly the complainant booked a consignment with the local office of OP on 13.09.2013 for its delivery to one Smt.Shyamala Devi at Chengannur in Kerala by paying a sum of Rs.40/-.  The complainant claims that, he was promised by the local office of the OP that, the consignment will be delivered within 2 days from the date of booking.  The complainant did not produced any credible documents or oral evidence to substantiate his contention that, he was promised by the OP that the consignment will be delivered within 2 days from the date of booking.  The zerox copy of the receipt produced by the complainant also do not disclose any undertaking by OP that the consignment will be delivered within 2 days to the addressee from the date of booking.  OP in their version as well as in the affidavit stoutly denied that, they promised the complainant that the consignment will be delivered within 2 days to the addressee from the date of booking.  In absence of any undertaking by the OP and in absence of any terms and conditions to that effect, it cannot be believed that, the OP undertook to deliver the consignment within two days from the date of booking.

9. The complainant alleged that the consignment was delivered to the addressee only on 19.09.2013.  OP in their version as well as in the affidavit claims that, there was a public holiday in Kerala on 16.09.2013.  On account of holiday the consignment could not be delivered on that day.  OP further claims that, when the delivery boy went for deliver the consignment, there was nobody at home to receive the consignment and ultimately consignment was delivered on 19.09.2013.  The complainant in his affidavit evidence did not deny that 16.09.2013 was a public holiday in the state of Kerala.  The complainant also did not deny in his evidence that when the delivery boy went to the home of addressee subsequent to 16.09.2013 there was nobody at home to receive the consignment.  Therefore, we have no reason to disbelieve the contention of the OP that 16.09.2013 was public holiday and when delivery boy went to the home of the addressee there was nobody at home to receive the consignment.

10. Furthermore the complainant did not specify the particulars of the documents which said to have been sent to the addressee.  Admittedly he has not declared the nature of contents of the consignment while booking.  The complainant also did not specifically mentioned either in the complaint or in the affidavit evidence as to what actual loss he suffered due to delay in delivery of the consignment.  Therefore, we are not able to accept the self serving testimony of the complainant that he was put to huge loss of Rs.75,000/- due to the delay in delivery of the consignment.

11. In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has failed to establish deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Assuming that there is delay in delivery that itself does not amount to deficiency in service unless it is established that the complainant suffered loss or inconvenience due to such delay.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought in the complaint.

12. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency. 

13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.  The parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 23^rd day of June 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 06.03.2014.

1. Sri. M.V Pillai.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 06.03.2014.

1. Sri.T.G Gopinath.

 Document produced by the Opposite party - Nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*