Complaint Filed on:19.12.2013 |
Disposed On:25.06.2016 |
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN
25th DAY OF JUNE 2016
PRESENT:- | SRI. P.V SINGRI | PRESIDENT |
| SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA | MEMBER |
| SMT. P.K SHANTHA | MEMBER |
COMPLAINANT | Sri.S.M Anees Ahamed,
S/o Mohammed Shariff,
Aged about 35 years,
Advocate of SAAN LAW ASSOCIATES, Off:No.177/4(88), 1st Floor,
Cubbonpet Main Raod,
Near 12th Cross, Cubbonpet,
Bangalore-560 002. Advocate – Sri.G Nataraj. V/s |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1) Professional Couriers,
#195 (Old No.49),
“Professional Home” Margosa Road, Between 16th and 17th Cross,
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560055. Reptd by its Manager. Advocate – Sri.C.H Ramachandra Reddy. 2) Professional Couriers,
No.1203/A, Bhumiraj Costarica, Plot No.1 & 2, Sector 18,
Sanpada,
Navi Mumbai – 400705. Reptd by its Managing Director. |
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 Parties (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay him a compensation Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and direct them the OPs to return the courier vide BLR 170015711 dated 18.07.2012 together with cost of litigation.
2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:
That one Samir Kumar Bhadra from Assam who was working in State Bank of India entrusted complainant to file a Writ Petition before the High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. After disposal of the Writ Petition the complainant had sent all the relevant and original papers pertaining to the said case to his client Mr.Samir Kumar Bhadra to his address at State Bank of India, NRC, PO, NRP GOLAGHAT DIST, ASSAM on 18.07.2012 through OP-1 by courier bearing No.BLR 170015711. That the complainant was under the impression that the courier sent to his client has reached him. That during April, 2013 the said Mr.Samir Kumar Bhadra asked the complainant to sent the entire case papers to him for which the complainant informed that he has already sent the entire case papers on 18.07.2012 itself and the said Samir Kumar Bhadra informed the complainant that he has not at all received any such courier. That the complainant has also not received back the said courier. Immediately thereafter the complainant made enquires with the OPs. OPs even after 4 days did not furnish any information to the complainant regarding the said courier. That the complainant having fed up with the negligent attitude of the OPs sent a e-mail on 03.05.2013 as a final reminder seeking response at the earliest, however he did not receive any information from the OPs regarding the said Courier. Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 22.05.2013 to the complainant and despite service of legal notice, OPs failed in informing as to the fate of the said Courier.
The said courier contained important original documents pertaining to the service of client of the complainant. Due to the loss of said courier the said Mr.Samir Kumar Bhadra has been put to irreparable loss and the complainant has been put to great inconvenience and mental agony. Due to the non delivery of the said courier the client has lost trust on the complainant. The non delivery of the courier amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the complainant prays for an order directing the OPs to pay him compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony suffered by him and to direct the OPs to return back the said courier booked on 18.07.2012 together with cost of litigation.
3. In response to the notice issued, OP-2 failed to appear and was placed ex-parte.
4. OP-1 appeared through their advocate and filed version contending in brief as under:
It is true that on 18.07.2012 the complainant had sent a courier to one Samir Kumar Bhadra at the address mentioned in the complaint. That due to insufficient address the said courier could not be delivered to the addressee and later it has been redelivered to the complainant on 25.08.2012 by OP-1. The copy of the “Tracking Consignment” is produced to substantiate the same. The complainant despite receipt of the said courier on 25.08.2012 has filed this complaint against the OPs. Therefore on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the complainant is liable to be prosecuted for having filed a false complaint. That there is no any deficiency of service on the part of OPs as alleged in the complaint. Even assuming that the said courier is lost in transit, the liability of OPs is restricted to Rs.100/- only. That the said liability of OP is mentioned in the receipt issued to the complainant. Further at the time of booking the article the complainant has not given any declaration regarding the contents of the cover and also has not paid insurance as required under the law. The OPs are not at all aware of the contents of the said cover since the OPs have delivered back the said courier to the complainant on 25.08.2012. The present complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, the OP-1 prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. After version was filed 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, the OP got filed the affidavit evidence of their Manager Sri.Jagadishchandra A.K in support of the averments made in the version. Both the parties have submitted their written arguments and certain documents in support of their respective contentions.
6. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:
1) | Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OPs as alleged in the complaint? |
2) | What relief or order? |
7. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, averments made in the version, sworn testimony of both parties, written arguments, documents produced by both sides and other materials placed on record.
8. Our answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1:- | In Negative |
Point No.2:- | As per final order for the following |
REASONS
9. It is not in dispute that the complainant is a practicing advocate in Bangalore and on 18.07.2012 he sent a courier to his client by name Samir Kumar Bhadra by mentioning his address as State Bank of India, NRC, PO, NRP Golaghat Dist. Assam under courier No.BLR 170015711. The complainant has produced the original receipt for having booked the said courier under which he has paid Rs.150/- towards courier charges. OP-1 in his version as well in his affidavit evidence admits the booking of the said courier by the complainant on 18.07.2012.
10. It is the case of the complainant that the said courier contained relevant and original papers pertaining to the writ petition filed on behalf of his client Samir Kumar Bhadra. Admittedly the complainant has not made any declaration at the time of booking stating that the said cover contains important original documents. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant has also not insured the said courier by paying necessary insurance charges. Therefore, the said courier has been treated as normal courier by the OP. Furthermore the complainant also did not produce any credible material on record to believe that the said courier/cover contained important original documents pertaining to his client Mr.Samir Kumar Bhadra. In absence of credible oral and documentary evidence, we are unable to accept that the said courier/cover contained relevant original documents pertaining to Mr.Samir Kumar Bhadra.
11. The complainant alleges that during the month of April 2013 his client Mr.Samir Kumar Bhadra called him and requested to send the case papers and only then the complainant came to know that his client has not received the courier sent by him on 18.07.2012. There is no explanation from the complainant as to why he did not verify with the client as to the receipt of the said courier within reasonable time subsequent to 18.07.2012 if at all the said courier contained important and original documents. After nearly 10 months from the date of sending the courier the complainant starts enquiring with the OP regarding the delivery of the said courier. Certainly there is inordinate delay on the part of the complainant in making enquiry regarding delivery of the said courier.
12. OP-1 in their version as well as in the sworn testimony contended that due to insufficient address on the said cover/courier it was not delivered to the addressee and thereafter it has been redelivered to the complainant on 25.08.2012 by the officials of OP-1. To substantiate that the said courier has been redelivered to the complainant on 25.08.2012 the OP-1 has produced the “Tracking Consignment”. Perused the ‘Tracking Consignment’ produced by OP-1 at document No.1. According to the said document the consignment/courier booked on 18.07.2012 has been returned back to Bangalore office of OP-1 on 25.08.2012 and on the very same day the same has been delivered back to the complainant. The complainant even after the said defence set out by the OP-1 and even after production of ‘Tracking Consignment’ did not deny the same in his affidavit evidence. Though the complainant denies that the said consignment/courier has not delivered back to him but strangely the complainant did not deny the receipt of the said courier on 25.08.2012. The complainant for the reasons best known to him neither disputed the correctness/genuineness of ‘Tracking Consignment’ nor denied the receipt of the said consignment/courier on 25.08.2012. This conduct of complainant strengthens the contention of OP that the said courier/consignment has been redelivered to the complainant on 25.08.2012 as mentioned in the ‘Tracking consignment’ maintained in the office of OP-1. Therefore, we are unable to accept the allegations of the complainant that there is deficiency on the part of OP in handling the said courier/consignment. It is also pertinent to note that, the complainant also did not deny the allegations of the OP that the address mentioned on the cover/courier was insufficient as a result of which it cannot be delivered to the addressee.
13. Thus looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the discussions made in the above paragraphs, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Therefore, the complaint must fail and is liable to be dismissed.
14. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.
15. 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. 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 25th day of June 2016)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Vln*
Complainant | - | Sri.S.M Anees Ahamed,
Bangalore-560 002. |
| V/s | |
Opposite Parties | | 1) Professional Couriers,
Bangalore-560055. Reptd by its Manager. 2) Professional Couriers,
Navi Mumbai – 400705. Reptd by its Managing Director. |
Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 21.06.2014.
- Sri.S.M Anees Ahamed
Documents produced by the complainant:
1) | Document No.1 is the original courier receipt issued by OP to the complainant. |
2) | Document No.2 is the copies of e-mail correspondence made between complainant and OP dated 13.03.2013, 28.03.2013, 02.04.2013 & 03.05.2013. |
3) | Document No.3 is the copy Legal notice dated 22.05.2013. |
4) | Document No.4 is the two postal receipts. |
5) | Document No.5 is the two postal acknowledgments. |
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party-1 dated 26.07.2014.
- Sri.Jagadishchandra A.K
Documents produced by the Opposite Party-1:
1) | Document No.1 is the copy of tracking consignments. |
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Vln*
