D.O.F. 14.01.2013

                                            D.O.O. 21.01.2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K.Gopalan                   :                President

                   Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :               Member

                   Sri. Babu Sebastian         :               Member

Dated this the 21^st day of January,  2014.

C.C.No.15/2013

Prabhakaran C.K.

Mettak House

Midavilode                                                            :         Complainant

P.O. Iriveri

Kannur – 670 613.

1. Professional Courier

    Chakkarakkal

    P.O. Mouanchery

    Kannur  

(Rep. by Adv. K. Vinod Raj)                                  :         Opposite Parties

2.  Professional Courier

    K.K. Building

    A.G. Road

    Kozhikode – 673 001

(Rep. by Adv. Pramod K.)

O R D E R

Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  Member

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of `10,000 towards compensation for the deficiency in service from their part.

          The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :  The complainant is working in Government I.T.I., Kozhikode.  On 07.01.2013 the complainant sent a courier to Kozhikode through 1^st opposite party.  The courier includes the application for medical leave.  Although 1^st opposite party assured to deliver the courier on the next day itself it was not delivered till 10.01.2013.  So the non-delivery of courier caused severe hardship and mental agony to the complainant.   Hence this complaint. 

          After receiving the complaint, notice was issued to opposite parties.  Opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared after receiving notice and version was filed by Opposite party No.1.

          As per the version of 1^st opposite party, the courier has reached Calicut on the next date itself.  But they could not deliver the same on 08.01.2013, 09.01.2013 and 10.01.2013 due to the indefinite strike of Government employees.  So there is no wilful latches on the side of opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with the cost of opposite party.

          Here the main point to be considered is whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. 

The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of complainant, who was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4.

          Here the complainant has admitted in his complaint that there was strike of Govt. employees on 08.01.2013, 09.01.2013 and 10.01.2013.  The contention of opposite party is that they could not deliver the courier in the office of complainant as there was no one in the office to receive the courier.  When the complainant was cross examined he had stated that “Govt. I.T.I  þse Poh-\-¡mÀ Kh¬saâv Poh-\-¡m-cm-Wv”….  “8,9,10 Xo¿-Xn-I-fn Bcpw hm§p-hm³ D­m-bnà F¶p ]d-ªm icn-b-Ã.”  But the complainant has not produced any supporting evidence to prove his case.  There is nothing before this Forum to disprove the contention of opposite party that delivery was not effected due to the strike of Govt. employees.  So we are of the opinion that there is no merits in the case of the complainant.  Deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties is not proved.  So this complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed without cost.

          Dated this the 21^st  day of January, 2014.

                          Sd/-                      Sd/-               Sd/-

                       President               Member          Member   

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Receipt issued by opposite party.

A2. Salary certificate dated 14.02.2013.

A3. Copy of Medical certificate.

A4. O.P. ticket.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT