SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation along with 12% interest per annum from the date of filing this complaint till realization and  cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part.

The case of the complainant in brief

            On 11/08/2016 the Complainant had entrusted OP No.1 a properly secured envelope containing original SSLC Book, original Pre-degree certificate of the complainant issued from Calicut University and original Diploma certificate in Nursing and Midwifery course issued by Karnatak State Nursing Education Board along with photographs of the complainant for the purpose of delivering the same to Sri .R Raghit Babu, E M Palaya, Sira Gate, Thunkur, a friend of the complainant.  The complainant paid a consideration of Rs.160/- to the OP No.1 for the said service.  The mobile No. Of the addressee also was provided to 2^nd OP also.  At the time of entrusting the envelop disclosed the fact to 1^st OP and the same being forwarded for the purpose of submitting applications before competent authority for registering complainant’s name before Karnataka state Nursing council and the time stipulated for registration is getting expired on 18/08/2016.  Then the 1^st OP represented the complainant that at any cost the said article would be delivered to the addressee within 2 days from the date of booking.  But the addressee did not receive the article even by 16/08/2016 the complainant started enquiry with 1^st OP, what is the reason for the inordinate delay.  But 1^st OP was showing irresponsible attitude.  Then the complainant received back the certificate on 28/08/02016 in a shabby, partially mutilated condition with envelop opened and photographs were lost.  The irresponsible act of the OP No.1 the complainant lost one academic year and his prospect of getting an employment was also detrimentally affected as enrollment before Karnataka State Nursing Council could be done only during the next academic year.  Then the complainant send a lawyer notice to OPs on 17/09/2016.  Both OPs received the notice and no reply send to the complainant.  The act of the OPs the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  Hence the complaint.

            After receiving notice OP No.1 entered before the commission and filed his written version. OP No.2 set ex-parte.  The OP No.1 contended that the Iritty Franchisee will deliver the consignment will be sent to the respective places.  There is no negligence on the part of this OP.  The averment to the complaint that the complainant had entrusted the original certificate to be sent to addressee is not true.  Original documents are always sent by the complainant through professional couriers, pro-premium after declaring the contents.  So the contention that the original documents are sent through the 1^st OP is not true. More over OP1 contend that the carrier’s liability is limited to Rs.100/- per consignment.  The OP No.1 also submits that on 11/08/2016 itself the booked envelop was forwarded to Mangalore office of professional courier through the Area office and the Mangalore office is a necessary party also.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP NO.1 and the compensation claimed is without any basis and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and cost?      

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext. A1 to A3 were marked.  No oral or documentary evidence from the side of OPNo.1.

Issue No.1

The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions in the version. He was cross examined as Pw1 by the OP.  The documents Ext.A1 to A3 were marked on his part to substantiate his case. According to the complainant Ext.A1 is the lawyer notice on 17/09/2016 the complainant send a lawyer notice to OPs.  But the OPs received the notice not to send a reply to the complainant.  In Ext.A3 is the receipt issued by OP No.1 to complainant dated 11/08/2016.  At the time of evidence Pw1 deposed that “original documents sent ചെയ്യാന് OP No.1 ല് Pro-premium എന്ന ഒരു Service ഉണ്ടെന്ന് പറഞ്ഞാല്? എനിക്കറിയില്ല.  നിങ്ങള് Original documents ഒന്നും തന്നെ ഒന്നാം എതൃകക്ഷിയുടെ അടുത്ത് Book ചെയ്തില്ല എന്നും, Original documents ആണെന്ന് OP No.1 നോട് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല എന്നും പറയുന്നു? ശരിയല്ല. Documents നിങ്ങള് Declare ചെയ്യുന്ന സമയം Pro-premium facility avail ചെയ്യാന് OP NO.1 നിങ്ങളോട് ആവശ്യപ്പെടുമായിരുന്നു എന്നു പറയുന്നു? ശരിയല്ല.  But before the court the complainant produced Ext.A3 document which clearly shows that the “pro premium receipt” and the complainant paid Rs.160/- as service charge also.  So it is clear that he complainant entrusted the original documents to OP No.1 and OP No.1 is not delivered the original documents to addressee within 2 days.  So there is deficiency of service on his part also.  At the time of evidence the complainant produced the disputed documents original documents (11 in numbers) before the commission also.  It is clear that the documents return back to the complainant and not delivered to the addressee at that time.  We hold that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade  practice on the part of OPs.   Hence the issue NO.1 found in favor of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2 &3

            As discussed above the complainant had sent original documents to Sri Raghit Babu, EM Palaya, Sira Gate, Thunkur through OP No.1 which has been rendering pro-premium professional courier services and the OP assured and under taken the delivery of the original certificates send by the complainant.  But the OP 1 has not delivered the same to the addressee.  So we hold that the OPs directly bound to redressal the grievances caused to the complainant.  So the complainant caused much mental agony. Therefore we hold that the OPs jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant along with Rs.2,500/- as litigation cost.   Thus the issue No.2 and 3 are also accordingly answered.

            In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant for mental agony of the complainant along with Rs.2,500/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default the amount of Rs.8,000/- carry 12% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1- Lawyer notice

A2- Postal receipt

A3- Receipt issued by OP No.1

      Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar