KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM FA.287/08 JUDGMENT DATED.30.7.09 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER Sabu, Pratheeksha Store, Near Collectorate, Collectorate.P.O, -- APPELLANT Kottayam. (By Adv.B.Vasudevan Nair) Vs. Rajan P.Jacob, Puthenpurackal, Moolavattom.P.O, -- RESPONDENT Kottayam. JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant is the opposite party in CC.10/06 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint in the aforesaid consumer complaint was filed by the respondent herein as complainant claiming compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in delivering the consignment covered by A2 consignment note. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version contending that the opposite party acted only as a collection agent of the Flyking Courier and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is also contended that the Flyking Courier is a necessary party to the proceedings in the said complaint. Before the Forum below both parties filed proof affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. Exts. A1 to A4 documents were also produced and marked from the side of the complainant. No documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the opposite party. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the forum below passed the impugned order directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- with cost of Rs.750/-. Aggrieved by the said order dated 24.8.07 passed by CDRF, Kottayam in CC.No.10/06, the present appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party and the respondent/complainant who appeared in person. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, and that the opposite party cannot be made liable as he acted only as a collection agent of the Flyking Courier. On the other hand, the respondent/complainant supported the impugned order passed by the Forum below and requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in delivering the consignment, which he received from the complainant? 2. Whether the complaint in CC.10/06 is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? 3. Whether the Forum below can be justified in fastening the liability on the appellant/opposite party? 4. POINTS 1 TO 3:- The fact that the respondent/complainant entrusted the article (consignment) with the opposite party for delivering the same at Bangalore is admitted. It is the case of the complainant that he forwarded the migration certificate addressed to his daughter who was studying at Bangalore. The opposite party admitted the fact that he received the consignment from the complainant and issued Ext.A2 receipt. It is true that the A2 receipt is that of Flyking Courier Service. The fact that the opposite party issued A2 receipt is not in dispute. It can be considered that the opposite party acted as the agent of the Flyking Courier Service. So, the opposite party being the agent of the Flyking courier service is answerable and liable to the complainant who entrusted the consignment with the opposite party. Moreover, the opposite party has not produced any agreement entered into between himself and the Flyking Courier Service. So, as far as the complainant/consumer is concerned he treated the opposite party as the person responsible for receiving the consignment for its onward transit to the consignee at Bangalore. The fact that the consignment could not be delivered at the consignee in Bangalore is not denied or disputed. The mere fact that the complainant/consumer omitted to implead the Flyking courier service as a to the complaint cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. On that sole ground the complaint cannot fail. 5. The opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on his part in forwarding the consignment to the consignee at Bangalore. Nothing is there on record to show that the opposite party acted as the agent of the Flyking courier service. As far as the complainant is concerned, he lost the consignment, which was entrusted with the opposite party. Whether the opposite party acted as the agent of the Flyking courier service or that he himself acted, as the courier service provider would not change the character of the liability. The fact that the complainant suffered inconvenience on account of the failure to deliver the consignment to the consignee at Bangalore would make the case of the complainant entitled for compensation. So, the Forum below is justified in finding the opposite party as deficient in rendering service. 6. The complainant as consumer claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The forum below considering the nature and gravity of loss and inconvenience suffered by the complainant has awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- with cost of Rs.750/-. It is averred in the affidavit that the complainant’s daughter had to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as fine for delayed submission of the migration certificate. It would also show that the complainant and his daughter suffered mental agony and inconvenience due to the loss of the migration certificate. They had to secure a duplicate copy of the migration certificate from the concerned authority. So, considering the inconvenience and discomfort suffered by the complainant a sum of Rs.5000/- awarded by the forum below as compensation can be treated as just and reasonable. We do not find any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by forum below. Hence we do so. The points are answered accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the forum below is confirmed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN | | 
