O R D E R

By Smt. Sreeja S. Member:

          Complainant is Marine Engineer student studying at Glasgow England. On 13/01/15 a college visa supporting letter were sent from Glasgow to the complainant at Peramangalam. It reached on 04/02/15 only. Hence he could not reach the college in time to attend the course. It was due to the late receipt of the letter and same has been caused at the fault of the opposite parties. He caused a lawyer notice on 29/07/15 which yielded no result. Hence this complaint.

          2) On receiving complaint, notice served properly to the opposite parties. 1^st opposite party appeared through counsel and filed version. 2^nd opposite party remained absent and set ex-parte. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows. 1^st opposite party is not a courier service and it is an optical shop run near Amala Hospital. The post and parcel man of the DTDC courier keeps the letters and parcels at the shop room and respective addressees were  collecting the same from the shop and for which no consideration or agreement exist. The act was done as a help which resulted in unwarranted legal action against the 1^st opposite party. There is no privity of contract and no cause of action against the opposite party. 1^st opposite party never provided any service of DTDC to the public and hence prayed for dismissal.

          3) Points :

                   a) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the

                       opposite parties.

                   b) Relief and cost ?

          4) From the side of the complainant, he filed proof affidavit in tune with complaint. He produced 7 documents which are marked as Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. P1 is the copy of Notice of Immigration Decision; Ext. P2 is the copy of lawyer notice dtd. 29/07/15; Ext. P3 series are the Postal Receipts; Ext. P4 is the copy of Student Visitor Visa Support Document; Ext. P5 is the copy of email received by the complainant; Ext. P6 is the copy of another email received by the complainant; Ext. P7 is the copy of Skynet details regarding the courier. 1^st opposite party filed counter proof affidavit and no documents marked.

 Points :

1. The case of the complainant is that he did not receive the consignment within a reasonable time which caused huge loss to him. The 2^nd opposite party is the Skynet World Wide Express and they declared ex-parte. The 1^st opposite party appeared through counsel and their case is that they were running an optical business and does not conduct post parcel or consignment service. Ext. P5 email states that the complainant can track the consignment through www.skynetwwe.com. Ext. P7 is the tracking details of 2^nd opposite party. It has no nexus with DTDC service. So if believing the version of the complainant as such, it would not support  his case to the extent that the DTDC has a part in the transaction. The specific case of the 1^st opposite party is that they are optical shop and respective parties are collecting the parcels which kept at their shop that too without consideration.
2. The counsel for the 1^st opposite party vehemently argued that the complainant failed to prove nexus with the 1^st opposite party and no documents or evidence adduced to show the same. The counsel also pointed out regarding the failure to prove the aspect consideration paid or received by the 1^st opposite party in this regard. Complainant did not adduce any evidence to prove his case against the 1^st opposite party regarding their burden or duty to provide service to the complainant and also to show their deficiency in service. At this juncture the case of the 1^st opposite party turns to be more believable and humanitarian consideration by the 1^st opposite party need to be appreciated. Hence the case against 1^st opposite party stands dismissed. Since the 2^nd opposite party who is the actual consignor as proved by Ext. P5 to P7 and they remained ex-parte, this Commission inclined to allow this complaint as against 2^nd opposite party alone.

          In the result complaint is allowed and hereby direct the 2^nd opposite party alone to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant and direct 2^nd opposite party to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards cost. Within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing in which the total amount carries 9% interest from the date of this order.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 15^th day of February 2021.

    Sd/-                                               Sd/-                                     Sd/-

Sreeja S                          Dr. K. Radhakrishnan Nair                C.T. Sabu

Member                          Member                                             President

                               Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 copy of Notice of Immigration Decision

Ext. P2 copy of lawyer notice dtd. 29/07/15

Ext. P3 series Postal Receipts

Ext. P4 copy of Student Visitor Visa Support Document

Ext. P5 copy of email received by the complainant

Ext. P6 copy of another email received by the complainant

Ext. P7 copy of Skynet details regarding the courier

Id/-

Member