<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.03.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 19th JUNE 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. S.S.NAGARALE PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.728/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT D.S.L. Rao,No.303, 14th Main,AGS Layout, Smpura Post,Bangalore – 560061.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Senior Manager,Customer Care,The Professional Couriers,No.475, 1st Floor, 5th Block,KHB Colony, Koramangala,Bangalore – 560095.Advocate – Sri.M.A.Sebastian<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- along with interest and cost on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> On 01.01.2009 complainant has entrusted an old antique item of one pair of cufflinks, which was 60 years old and fitted with elegant ruby red colour stones, to the OP so as to deliver it one Mr.P.James Sundar Rao, who is an industrialist and also an antique collector. On his request, having taken an amount of Rs.2,000/- from him for the same. The said item was sent through OP by receipt dated 01.01.2009 No.BLR-HRD/KAR-01-BLR/KTP-70827920 to the local address of Mr.James Sundar Rao at Mahadevapura, Bangalore – 48. The receipt issued by the OP is produced. The value of the antique item parcel sent by the OP is worth of Rs.2,000/-, till 29.03.2009 OP failed to deliver the said item to the consignee. When consignee insisted for refund of money, complainant returned Rs.2,000/- to him. When complainant contacted OP about the non delivery of the parcel, the officials of the OP informed that the parcel was lost in transit. Complainant wrote letters on 06.03.2009, 21.03.2009 and 28.03.2009 claming compensation. OP replied admitting that they lost the parcel in transit and expressed their apologies. Correspondence are produced. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version mainly contending that complainant booked the consignment without declaring its contents and value. The consignment was accepted as an original consignment. Unfortunately said consignment was lost in transit, in spite of best efforts same could not be traced out. There is no basis for the compensation claimed. Unless complainant proves the declared value OP is not liable to pay the compensation. The liability of OP is limited to Rs.100/- only. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the OP accepted the parcel from the complainant to deliver it to consignee on receipt of required fees of Rs.10/- on 01.01.2009. The item sent under the parcel being an old antique item of one pair of cufflinks 60 years old and fitted with elegant ruby red colour stones worth of Rs.2,000/-. When parcel did not reach the consignee who is the local addressee even after lapse of 2 ½ months. The consignee insisted for refund of money. Hence complainant refunded Rs.2,000/- to the consignee received by him. The OP clearly admits that they lost the parcel in transit.<br /> <br /> 7. Further it is contended that under the Carriers Act the liability of the OP is limited to only Rs.100/-. Complainant having understood the terms and conditions of the contract entrusted the said parcel to the OP. We have gone through the documents produced by the complainant. Though in a small letter there is a mention of the liability to only to the tune of Rs.100/- in case of delay or loss of consignment in transit, for that document complainant is not a party. So there is no concluded contract. The defence set out by the OP is unilateral. Hence we don’t find force in the contention of the OP that complainant is estopped from claiming excess amount than that of Rs.100/-. There is no proof that complainant has accepted the said terms and conditions. When that is so, complainant is not bound by the said note.<br /> <br /> 8. We are satisfied that complainant is able to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The non delivery of the parcel must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss. Of course there is no proof of sending of goods worth of Rs.2,000/- through the said parcel but still the negligent act of OP has to be taken note of. The OP being a service provider must see that customer / consumer are served in a better way without giving scope for negligence or deficiency in service. C.P Act is enacted to protect and safe guard the better interest of the ‘consumers’. In our considered view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 19th day of June 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />