DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Thursday the 15th day of November 2021
C.C. 251/2017
Complainant
Ranjith .N.P
Narukkumpoyil
Nayarkuzhi,
NIT, Kozhikode
(By Adv.Srinath Girish)
Opposite Party
Professional Courier Service
Kunnamangalam
Kozhikode.
(By Adv. P. Rajeev and Adv. Mridulla.P)
ORDER
By Smt. PRIYA.S. – MEMBER
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 27/05/2017 Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (KSIDC) had sent a letter to the complainant through the Professional Couriers. Complainant was informed over telephone from the office of the opposite party to receive the courier from that office. The complainant requested the opposite party either to hand over the courier to the office of his brother at Kattangal or to the complainant directly. But the opposite party informed that it was not possible to deliver the courier on the same day and asked him to come and accept the same from the office. Then the complainant contacted the main office of the professional courier service at Kozhikode. Thereafter he was contacted from the office of the opposite party informing that the courier could not be delivered to him directly, but could be delivered at Kattangal. The complainant insisted that it should be delivered to him directly. But the opposite party was not amenable and returned the courier to the sender with endorsement that the party did not collect. Later, the said letter was sent by the KSIDC through the postal department and he received the same. There was gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party . The Act of the opposite party caused mental agony and hardship to him. Hence the complaint for compensation of Rs.25,000/-.
3. The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing version. According to the opposite party, they used to deliver all the couriers directly to the addressee. On 27/05/2017, a courier in the name of the complainant was received in their office and the complainant was contacted over telephone. The address of the complainant could not be located. On contacting the complainant, they were instructed to deliver the courier in the office of his brother. But when the courier was delivered, the complainant was not ready to acknowledge the receipt and accordingly it was returned to the sender. Later the complainant received the same through the postal department. There was no latches on their part. No mental agony was caused to the complainant due to the act of the opposite party and entitling him to claim compensation. With the above contentions, the opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint with compensation and costs.
4. The points that arise for determination in this case are:
(1) Whether there was any deficiency of service on
the part of the opposite party, as alleged ?
(2) Whether the claim for compensation is allowable?
If so, what is the quantum?
(3) Reliefs and costs.
5. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exhibits A1 to A6 on the side of the complainant. RW1 was examined and Exts. B1 was marked on the side of the opposite party.
6. Heard.
7. Point No.1 : The case of the complainant is that the KSIDC had sent a letter to him by availing the service of the opposite party on 27/05/2017, but the opposite party did not deliver the same to him and thereby there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
8. In order to substantiate his case, the complainant got himself as examined as PW1 and produced and marked 6 documents as Ext A1 to A6. PW1 has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint.
9. RW1 is the manager of the opposite party and he filed proof affidavit and deposed supporting the contentions in the version. RW1 has maintained that the courier was undelivered and had to be returned to the sender since the complainant was reluctant to acknowledge the receipt of the same.
10. Admittedly, on 27/05/2017 the KSIDC had sent a letter to the complainant by availing the services of the opposite party. It was not delivered to the complainant. The reason stated is that the opposite party was unable to locate the address and hence they contacted the complainant over telephone who requested them to deliver the same at his brother’s office. The opposite party has claimed that when they reached the said office for delivery, the complainant informed that he was not prepared to acknowledge the receipt of the courier and hence they were constrained to send back the same to the sender.
11. It cannot be disputed that the opposite party is bound to deliver the courier to the addressee directly. This is admitted by the opposite party in their version. It is clearly averred in the version that they used to hand over all the couriers to the addressees directly.
12. The contention of the opposite party is that the addressee could not be located. The said contention cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Firstly, if the address was not clear or incomplete so as to locate, the opposite party would not have accepted the courier promising to deliver it to the addressee. Secondly, the same letter sent by the KSIDC subsequently through the Indian Postal Authorities reached the addressee timely. This is evidenced by Ext.A3 letter, Ex.A4 copy of the postal acknowledgement card and Ext.A5 Postal receipt. The story that the complainant was not prepared to acknowledge the receipt also cannot be believed. If the complainant was not prepared to give acknowledgement, he would not have asked the opposite party to deliver it in the office of his brother. As rightly submitted by the complainant, it appears that such a contention is taken only to suit the occasion and to wriggle out of the situation in order to escape from the liability.
13. Ext. B1 is the terms and conditions of Professional couriers. It is stated in Ext.B1 that the liability of professional couriers in cases of any loss or damage shall not exceed Rs.100/-. Further it is provided that all matters of business should be settled within the jurisdiction of the booking station. In this context, it may be noted that this is not a case of loss or damage to the consignment, but a case of non- delivery of the courier. The opposite party carries on business within the jurisdiction of this commission. The cause of action has partly arisen within the jurisdiction of this commission since the courier is to be delivered to the addressee within the jurisdiction of this commission. Ext. B1 in no way oust the jurisdiction of this commission.. Moreover neither the consignor nor consignee is a signatory to the said clauses. There is no evidence that the said clauses in Ext.B1 was shown and read over to the consignor or consignee or the same were agreed upon. So the said clauses in Ext. B1 limiting the liability to Rs.100/- and ousting jurisdiction cannot carry any weight.
14. To sum up, it is held that there was gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. It is the duty of the opposite party to deliver the courier directly to the addressee. But there was failure to do so. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming for the non-delivery of the courier to the addressee . The act of the opposite party has resulted in mental agony and hardship to the complainant. The complainant is entitled to be compensated suitably . The claim is for Rs.25,000/-. The claim appears to be excessive. However, the complainant is entitled to get a reasonable compensation. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.3000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case.
15. Point No. 3 :
In the light of the finding on the above points, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
- CC 251/2017 is allowed in part.
- Opposite party are directed to pay a sum of Rs.3.000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
(c )No order as to costs.
(d) The payment as aforestated shall be made with
within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me and pronounced in the open commission on this the 15th day November 2021.
Date of Filing: 11/07/2017. Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Sd/-
MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext. A1 – Copy of the Registration slip of professional courier
Ext. A2 – Copy of the letter sent by KSIDC.
Ext.A3 - Copy of the letter sent by KSIDC .
Ext. A4 – Copy of acknowledgment by KSIDC
Ext. A5 – Copy of Registration slip of India Post.
Ext.A6 – Copy of Registration slip of Professional courier
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Ext. B1 – Copy of print out of the terms and conditions of Professional
Couriers.
Commission Exhibits
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 – Ranjith - (Complainant)
Witnesses for the opposite party
RW1 - Remil kumar – Manager , Professional Courier Service.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent.
