IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday the 30th day of November, 2015
Filed on 12.12.2013
Present
1. Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2. Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3. Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.385/2013
Between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Dr. V.V. Haridas Professional Couriers
Director, K.V.M. Hospital Mailady Junction, Jubilee Road
Cherthala, Alappuzha District Bazar P.O., Alappuzha
(By Adv. K. Ajayakumar) represented by its Area Manager
(By Adv. R. Francis Xavier)
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant entrusted an article on 3.6.2013 to the opposite party to deliver at Aluva. The opposite party assured to deliver the article on the very next day ie. on 4.6.2013, but the opposite party failed to deliver the said article on 4.6.2013. The said article was sent to settle a claim, since the article was not delivered on time, the complainant was not able to keep up his promise. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. The opposite party is the franchisee of Professional Couriers at Alappuzha and the same is represented by its proprietor and not the Area Manager. The opposite party has not rendered any service to the complainant as alleged. It is admitted that a letter issued to one Mr. Rana George, Professional Couriers, Alappuzha regarding the non-delivery of the article. On enquiry it was found that no such letter was delivered through this office. Thereafter the letter was forwarded to the Parent Company M/s. Professional Couriers and thereafter as per their report, reply was given to the complainant regarding the delivery of the letter. The complainant has never suffered any loss or damage in this regard also the extent of damage is not shown. Moreover, what kind of damage or loss was caused is not mentioned. There is no negligence or latches on the part of this opposite party and so complainant is not entitled for any compensation or cost from the opposite party. Moreover, M/s. Professional Couriers which was a necessary party to the proceedings was not arrayed as a party in the above complaint. Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and documents Exts.B1 and B2 were marked.
3. Considering the allegations of the complainant, the Forum has raised the following points arose for consideration:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
4. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The case of the complainant is that on 3.6.2013 the complainant had entrusted an article to the opposite party to deliver at Aluva, the opposite party assured to deliver the same on 4.6.2013. Since the article was not delivered on time the complainant could not keep up his promise and it affected the reputation of the complainant and his firm. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party seeking compensation. The power of attorney holder of the complainant filed proof affidavit in support of his claim and produced 6 documents. Ext.A1 is the letter dated 8.6.2013 issued to Mr. Rana George, Professional Couriers, Alappuzha, Ext.A2 is the reply issued by the Professional Couriers, Ext.A3 is the letter dated 5.7.2013 issued by the complainant to the opposite party, Ext.A4 is the legal notice dated 26.7.2013, Ext.A5 is the acknowledgement card and Ext.A6 is the Power of Attorney executed by the complainant in favour of Sri. K.K. Sasidharan. Opposite party filed proof affidavit and produced 2 documents which were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. Ext.B1 is the computer printout of ledge showing the details of transaction from 1.6.2013 to 4.6.2013 and Ext.B2 is the copy of franchise agreement. According to the opposite party, no such letter was sent through the opposite party as alleged by the complainant and to support his contention the opposite party has produced the copy of daily sales Register showing the details of transaction on the alleged date. The contention of the opposite party is not sustainable, because Ext.A2 is written by the opposite party to the complainant regretting the delay caused in delivering the consignment. Further a letter dated on 5.7.2013 written by the complainant and the legal notice dated 26.7.2013 was also issued in the opposite party’s address represented by its Area Manager. Further more notice from this Forum was also served in the same address. After accepting all these articles and now raising the contention, opposite party’s firm represented by its Proprietor and not by the Area Manager is not sustainable. Admittedly the complainant has not produced the receipt, but Ext.A2 clearly shows that the complainant had sent the article through the opposite party. Therefore the opposite party can’t wash off his hands from liability. On 3.6.2013 the complainant had entrusted a consignment to the opposite party for its carriage from Alappuzha to Aluva. The opposite party assured that the consignment will reach the destination ie. on 4.6.2013 on the very next day itself. But the consignment did not reach the destination on 4.6.2013 when the power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined he deposed that the article was delivered only on 8.6.2013. The complainant sent the article through the courier in the hope that his article would reach the destination on time. Otherwise he could have sent it through ordinary post. The letter sent through courier is always urgent and emergent. Carrier is responsible for any delay in delivery of the consignment. On scanning the entire evidence this Forum finds that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Even though the complainant claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the damage suffered by him, it was not proved that what kind of damage was caused to him. Since the opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not delivering the article on time and therefore opposite party is liable to pay compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant. So the complaint is to be allowed.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings. The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2015.
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President):
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.K. Sasidharan (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Letter dated 8.6.2013 issued to Mr. Rana George, Professional Couriers, Alappuzha
Ext.A2 - Reply issued by the Professional Couriers Alappuzha
Ext.A3 - Letter dated 5.7.2013 issued by the complainant to the opposite party
Ext.A4 - Legal notice dated 26.7.2013
Ext.A5 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.A6 - Power of Attorney executed by the complainant in favour of Sri. K.K. Sasidharan
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Reji Mathew (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Computer printout of ledger showing the details of transaction from 1.6.2013 to 4.6.2013
Ext.B2 - Copy of franchise agreement
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite party/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
