BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY
THURSDAY, the 7th day of September, 2017
FIRST APPPEAL No. 12/2017
The Manager,
Professional Couriers,
Rep. by its Manager Balakrishnan,
No.167, Kamatchiamman Koil St.,
PUDUCHERRY. ……….. Appellant
Vs.
S.Mohan, S/o Sivagurunathan,
No.4, 4th Cross,
Bharathiar Street, Vasantha Nagar,
Villianur, Puducherry – 110. ………… Respondent
(On appeal against the order passed in C.C..No.63/2014, dt.13.01.2017 by District Forum, Puducherry)
C.C.No.63/2014
S.Mohan, S/o Sivagurunathan,
No.4, 4th Cross,
Bharathiar Street, Vasantha Nagar,
Villianur, Puducherry – 110. ………… Respondent
Vs.
The Manager,
Professional Couriers,
Rep. by its Manager Balakrishnan,
No.167, Kamatchiamman Koil St.,
PUDUCHERRY. ……….. Appellant
BEFORE:
HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE K.VENKATARAMAN,
PRESIDENT
THIRU. S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE,
MEMBER
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Thiru A.S.Vasakan
Advocate, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS:
Exparte
O R D E R
This appeal is directed against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Puducherry, dated 13.01.2017 made in C.C.63/2014.
2. The Opposite Party before the District Forum is the appellant herein and the complainant therein is the respondent.
3. The parties are referred in the same position as they have been referred before the District Forum for the sake of convenience.
4. The case of the complainant is that on 29.04.2014, he sent a letter through the collection centre of the opposite party situated at Kottaimedu, Villianur to one G.Masilamani, residing at Alamedu, P.N.Palayam Post, Panruti Taluk, Tamil Nadu by paying a sum of Rs.30/-. At the time of booking, the opposite party did not object with respect to the above address given by the complainant. While so, the letter was not delivered to the concerned person. It has caused mental agony to him. Therefore, the complainant after sending a letter demanding a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and loss of time, filed the complaint before District Forum.
5.Reply version has been filed by the opposite party thereon by stating that the collection centre is not the direct staff of opposite party and they do not know as to whether the addressee is residing within the service area. The addressee was residing 6 K.M. away from branch office. Therefore, the opposite party called the complainant to receive the letter since the service is not extended to that place. The addressee has not received the letter. Thus, the reply version sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. Before the District Forum, three points were culled for determination:
1) Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2) Whether the opposite party attributed deficiency in service?
3) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?
7. As regards point No.1, the District Forum found that the complainant is a consumer. As regards point No.2, the District Forum found that there is deficiency in service of the opposite party. As regards point No.3, the District Forum directed the opposite party to return Rs.30/-; to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as litigating expenses.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the letter had been addressed to a place where they do not have any office. It is 6 K.M. away from the Branch Office. Further, it has been argued by the counsel appearing for the opposite party that the complainant knowing fully well that services are not extended to the village where the letter has been addressed, has booked the consignment and hence no deficiency can be attributed against the opposite party.
9. We have heard the appellant. We have perused the complaint, reply version and documents filed in the above matter. The opposite party received the consignment and booked the same to serve it to one G.Masilamani, residing at Alamedu, P.N.Palayam Post, Panruti Taluk, Tamil Nadu after receiving a sum of Rs.30/- towards charge. If really the opposite party will not be in a position to serve the said letter, it should not have received the consignment to serve to the addressee, since they do not have branch office in the village to serve. But having received the consignment to be served to the addressee, the opposite party had not delivered it to the addressee. Further, the opposite party has not immediately reply to the communication sent by the complainant. It shows that that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, as held by the District Forum.
10. In view of the same, the directions given by the District Forum, Puducherry that the opposite party shall return Rs.30/-, being the charge collected by opposite party cannot be faulted. As far as the compensation for deficiency in service is concerned, the complainant has not established that he suffered much mental agony because of non-service of the concerned letter. Therefore, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) could awarded instead of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the District Forum. As far as the cost of Rs.5,000/- is concerned, the same does not need any reconsideration.
11. In fine, the order of the District Forum, Puducherry is modified to the extent indicated above.
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2017
(Justice. K.VENKATARAMAN)
PRESIDENT
(S.TIROUGNANASSAMBANDANE)
MEMBER
