BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.143/2009 Order dated this the 15th day of February 2010 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Devaraju S/o Late Rajarathnam, R/o D.No.125, N.G.O. Colony, 2nd Stage, 3rd Main Road, Kaveri Nagar, Mandya. (Sri.B.K.Ganapathi., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Professional Couriers, Opposite Head Post Office, V.V.Road, Mandya. (By Smt.S.Sumathi., Advocate) Date of complaint 01.12.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 18.12.2009 Date of order 15.02.2010 Total Period 1 Month 27 Days Result The Complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- with cost of Rs.300/- to the Complainant within 8 weeks. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/-. 2. The case of the Complainant is that his mother Rathnamma died on 12.08.2009. In connection with death of his mother, prayer function was arranged on 12.09.2009 and to attend that function, he got printed invitation and distributed at Mandya City and near by relatives. Since, he could not visit the distant villages and towns, he sent 20-25 invitations through Opposite party Courier Services on 05.09.2009 paying Rs.17/- his brother Swamy Das, in order to distribute to nearest relatives. To confirm whether the invitations were received, he made phone call on 08.09.2009 to his brother and came to know that the invitations were not received. On the same day, he enquired in Opposite party Office and they told that the invitation had been sent to Kollegal and when he questioned as to how the invitations went to Kollegala, when he has not given the address, they gave evasive answers and asked him to come after two days to give correct information. Again after two days, when he went to the Opposite party Office and enquired, they gave reply negligently stating that the invitations have gone to Mysore. As fixed be the prayer function for his mothers death was held on 12.09.2009 in the absence of his close relatives and he felt very bad and put into mental agony due to the negligence of the Opposite party and in fact due to the negligence of the Opposite party, the Complainant had to hear the insultive words of his uncles, maternal uncles and brothers. Therefore, the Complainant was put to mental agony. In spite of letter dated 02.11.2009, the Opposite party has not replied. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. In the petition given to the Opposite party by mistake the date is mentioned as 05.08.2009, incident of 05.09.2009 in the petition given to the Opposite party. On these grounds, the Complainant has sought for compensation. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting that the Complainant has sent Courier through the Opposite party. At the time of receiving the courier, the Opposite party has informed the Complainant that there is no service of courier to Mangala Hosur, Santhemaralli Post, Chamarajanagara Taluk, since it is interior post and the addressee has to collect the same at Chamarajanagara Office and for this, the Complainant has agreed. Since, the address did not come forward to collect the courier, there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant. The Complainant has not furnished the telephone number of the addressee and thereby the courier could not be delivered to the addressee. The Opposite party has not committed any negligence and deficiency in service and the complaint is to be dismissed. 4. During enquiry, the Complainant and the Opposite party Manager have filed affidavit and examined. The Complainant has produced Ex.C.1 to C.3 documents. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the compensation? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINTS NO.1 & 2:- The undisputed facts borne out from the materials on record are that the Complainant sent 20 to 25 invitations in connection with his mother death ceromany function to be held on 12.09.2009. On 05.09.2009 for distribution among his close relatives to his brother Swamydas R/o Mangala Hosur, Santhemaralli Post, Chamarajanagara Taluk, through the Opposite party on 05.09.2009 paying charges of Rs.17/-. Admittedly, the invitations sent by courier through Opposite party are not delivered to the addressee. 9. According to the Complainant, due to the negligence and deficiency of service, the invitations were not served to the addressee and therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. The contention of the Opposite party is that at the time of receiving the courier, the Opposite party informed the Complainant that there is no service of courier to Mangala Hosur, Santhemaralli Post, Chamarajanagara Taluk, since it is interior post and that the addressee has to collect the same at Chamarajanagara Office and for this, the Complainant has agreed, but the address did not come forward to collect the courier. The complainant has not furnished the telephone number of the addressee and thereby, they could not be delivered to the addressee. 10. The contention of the Opposite party cannot be accepted, because first of all the Opposite party should not have received the courier for service, if there is no service by the Opposite party to that address. Secondly, it is not the case of the Opposite party that the Complainant has agreed that he would inform his brother through phone for having sent the invitations through courier to Chamarajanagar and to collect the same. According to the Opposite party himself, the Complainant has not at all furnished the telephone number of the addressee. If the Opposite party was deligent in effecting service of courier, it should have obtained the telephone number of the addressee and on that basis it should have informed the addressee to collect the courier at Chamarajanagar. It is not at all suggested to the Complainant in the evidence that he had agreed to inform his brother for having sent the invitations through courier to Chamarajanagar and to collect the same. Mere oral say of the Opposite party cannot be believed at all without any proof. In fact, the Complainant gave a letter Ex.C.3 to the Opposite party complaining the negligence and deficiency in service by Opposite party. The Opposite party has not replied at all and in this circumstance, the materials on record clearly established that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not serving the courier to the addressee. 11. The Complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.50,000/. According to the Complainant, the function of his mother death ceromany was held on the day fixed without attendance of nearer relatives due to the negligence of the Opposite party and further he was made to suffer with insultive words by his uncles and maternal uncles and brothers for not having sent invitations to them. Naturally in the nature of such function, the nearer relatives are to be invited and for any lapse they would take the Complainant to task and naturally he would be put to mental agony and therefore, the Complainant is entitled to some compensation for mental agony due to the deficiency in service by the Opposite party and it is reasonable to award compensation of Rs.3,000/-. 12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly, directing the Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- with cost of Rs.300/- to the Complainant within 8 weeks. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 15th day of February 2010). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
