Date of Filing : 24.10.2011
Date of Order : 12.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.304/2011
TUESDAY THIS 12th DAY OF APRIL 2016
Mr. J. Selvakumar,
S/o. Jabamani Nadar,
No.R.-24, Kalavathi Illam,
Raj Naicken Street,
Thiruvalluvar Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018. ..Complainant
..Vs..
The Manager,
S.T. Courier,
No.141 Kldams Road,
Teynampet,
Chennai 600 018. ..Opposite party
For the Complainant : M/s. K. Mahalingam
For the opposite party : M/s. M. Jaikumar & another
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the incurring expenses for getting duplicate certificates and also for mental agony and hardship suffered by him and cost of the complaint to the complainant.
ORDER
THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-
The complainant submit that he has booked a consignment of envelope with the opposite party to send the same to his friend Mr.R.Samuel Durairaj, Thenkasi on 12.07.2011, on payment of charge of Rs.20/- as per the copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The same was not delivered to the addressee and was missing. After five days when the complainant contacted the addressee, he informed him that the cover has reached to him. Despite of several demands made by the complainant the opposite party has not given proper reply to complainant. As such the act of the opposite party is amount to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and torture to the complainant. As such the complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the incurring expenses for getting duplicate certificates and also suffered by mental agony and hardship to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
Written Version of opposite party is in briefly as follows:
2. The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite party states that it is alleged in the complaint that on 12.7.2011 the complainant booked consignment for delivery to his friend R.Samuel Durairaj, the said consignment contained is the complainant’s mark sheet and the same was not delivered to the consignee so far. After five days when the complainant contacted the addressee, he informed him that the cover has reached to him. The complainant is not clear whether the consignment reached or lost. The most common that in normal course of booking the consignment used to reach the consignee within 24 hours subject to acts, occurrence of any case beyond the control, strikes, riots, accident of the vehicle, traffic jam, break down of vehicles and other disturbances. The opposite party further submit that they took utmost care to deliver the consignment immediately as much as possible more than the above said reasons delays also occur normally due to the act of the consignee or consignor. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation in this regard and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite party is filed and no documents was marked on the side of the opposite party.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
5. POINTS 1 to 2 : -
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, the written version filed by the opposite party, proof affidavits filed by the complainant, the opposite party and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 filed on the side of complainant and also considered the arguments of the both sides.
6. There is no dispute that the complainant has booked a consignment of envelope with the opposite party to send the same to his friend Mr.R.Samuel Durairaj, Thenkasi on 12.07.2011, on payment of charge of Rs.20/- as per the copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant as Ex.A4. The same was not delivered to the addressee and was missing. The opposite party has admitted that the missing of the said consignment despite of effort taken by them.
7. Whereas the complainant has raised grievance that he has sent the original certificates of B.A degree certificate, mark sheets and Transfer certificate of his son in the said envelope for seeking appointment, since the same was not delivered properly and missing his son’s carrier was affected, as such claims compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the incurring expenses for getting duplicate certificates and also for mental agony and hardship suffered by him.
8. Whereas the opposite party has resisted the said claim by saying that the particulars of the content of the articles are not known to the opposite party but they were prohibited by sending in the said courier, as per the terms and conditions, as such the opposite party is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant. But the complainant is entitled only a sum of Rs.100/- as compensation for the said non delivery/missing article as per the terms and conditions printed in the over leaf of the receipt. For the said contention opposite party has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV (2007) CPJ 165 (NC) in the said decision it is held as follows:
“The terms contained in the receipt along with the affidavit of Shyam Sundar R. Kalantri, Managing Director of petitioner constituted a contract between the parties, liability for a loss of a parcel, in question under the terms was resisted to Rs.50/- in support of the submission, strong reliance was placed on the decision in Bharathi Knitting Company –vs- DHL World wide Express Courier, Airfreight Ltd., II (1996 CPJ 25 SC CP) under the said receipt the liability for a loss of booked parcel is Rs.50/ only. The said decision supports the submission with regard to the liability of petitioner, being resisted only up to Rs.50/- in this case”
Therefore as per the above said decision of the Hon’ble National Commission and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court mentioned thereon the liability of the opposite party for the missing consignment will be on the basis of terms and conditions only. As per opposite party’s contention, the liability for the non deliver of the missing article / consignment is Rs.100/- only as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the receipt. Whereas the copy of the over leaf of the said receipt Ex.A4 was non filed by the complainant and there is no proper explanation for the same on the side of complainant. Therefore as contended by the opposite party it can be taken that the liability for the missing article under the said receipt Ex.A4 will be Rs.100/- as per the terms and conditions is acceptable. Further as per the Ex.A4 receipt contains printed terms the complaint mention original certificates are prohibited to be sent. Even if the complainant sent the original certificates in the said consignment which is prohibited and not lawfully permitted one, as such for the missing of the same the opposite party cannot be made liable. Therefore the complainant claim of Rs.2,00,000/- towards incurring expenses for getting duplicate certificates and mental agony hardship as compensation not justifiable. Therefore we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled only for the said missing non delivered consignment, the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.100/- as compensation and also to refund the booking charges of Rs.20/- to the complainant, since they were not paid by the opposite party to the complainant which was compelled the complainant to file this complaint, the opposite party is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards litigation charges is justifiable.
9. Therefore we are of the considered view, that the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.120/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of notice i.e 16.08.2011 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards litigation charges. Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered.
In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.120/- (Rupees one hundred and twenty only) towards the loss of article / consignment booked by the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 16.08.2011 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards litigation charges, within six weeks from the date of this order.
Dictated directly by the President to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24th day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents:
Ex.A1- 19.5.2008 - Copy of the Transfer certificate.
Ex.A2- March 2008 - Copy of HSC Mark sheet.
Ex.A3- - - Copy of B.A. degree mark sheet.
Ex.A4- 12.7.2011 - Copy of courier booking receipt.
Ex.A5- 16.8.2011 - Copy of legal notice.
Ex.A6- 23.8.2011 - Copy of Ack. Card.
Ex.A7- 21.9.2011 - Copy of notice of Errata issued to the opposite party.
Opposite party’s Exhibits:-
.. Nil ..
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
