KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUDTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.602/05 JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER 1. M/s.Speed & Safe Courier Services, T.D.Road, Cochin-672 035. Rep.by its Director. 2. Speed & Safe Courier Services, -- APPELLANTS Thrissur. Reptd. by Manager. (By Adv. Jayasanker.B) Vs. Satheeshkumar.N. Son of Narayanan, Kormath House, Enkakad Village desom, Talappilly Taluk rep by Power of -- RESPONDENT Attorney holder N.Sunilkumar, S/o Narayanan, Kormath House, Enkakad Village desom, Talappilly Taluk. (By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair & Ors.) JUDGMENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA,MEMBER This appeal prefers from the order passed by the forum below in OP.414/03 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur dated 21st February 2005. The respondents are the opposite parties. 2 In short, the complainant alleged some complaint that he sent a parcel to his friend Mr.Suprathim Dutta of Calcutta through the appellants. According to the complainant parcel contained a blood pressure monitor and a G.S mobile phone meant as gifts to his friend that the consignment was hard paper carton tied with a nylon tape and completely covered with white cloth stitched with thread. He paid Rs.112/- towards courier charges. But when the parcel reached the consignee, the packet was not intact, it was opened and it was seeing that the top portion cloth and carton paper were cut with a sharp object and the carton was opened. The mobile phone was found missing from the carton. His friend contacted the complainant and confirmed that two items were sent. Then he filed a written complaint to the Director, A.E.S. courier service and 8, Comac Street Building, Ground Floor, he is an authorized agent of the respondents in Calcutta on 27.6.2001. But they did not respond to the letter of Mr. Dutta. The addressee has not received the mobile phone till this date. He, on many times visited the 2nd opposite party and the agent at Vadakkancherry. There is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents Rs.10,000/- was claimed towards cost of the mobile phone and further sum of Rs10,000/- claiming towards compensation for mental agony suffered by him and also costs. 3. The opposite parties contended that the petition is bad for non - jointer of the friend of the petitioner to whom the parcel was sent. The signatory to the complaint is not competent to file the complaint and he is not a power of attorney holder. Since, the dispute pertains to period 2001 it is not possible to say to the complaint had booked a parcel as stated in the petition. Neither the complaint nor the beneficiaries ever voiced a complaint regarding the non receipt of the mobile phone. The complainant has no case that the parcel was missing to the opposite parties. Further he has not declared the value of the contents at the time of booking the parcel. The complainant ought to have filed a complaint if his case is too. The opposite party denied the claim of the complainant that he had declared that the parcel contained a blood pressure monitor and G.S. mobile phone. They further contended that if his claim were true definitely the booking staff would have insisted for the copies of the bill and the documents pertaining to the mobile phone and made a note of the details to make sure that it is not a smuggled or contraband item. Though it is alleged in the complaint that the beneficiary complained to AES courier service (which is not in existence), no such complaint was forwarded to the respondents by the alleged AES Courier service or anybody else. The allegation is that the complaint visited the second opposite party agent at Vadakkanchery and complained about the matter. It was specifically contended that the opposite parties have never received any complaint or fax message from the complainant or the beneficiary. 4. The evidence consists of Ext.P1 and P2 for the complainant and there is no evidence adduced by the appellant/opposite parties. The forum below found that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards the value of the mobile phone and Rs.3000/- towards compensation. The Petitioner is entitled to get costs of Rs.600/-. Such a way, the forum below allowed the complaint. 5. The appellant prefers this appeal from the impugned order passed by the forum below. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, the counsel for the appellant is present and there is no representation for the respondent/complainant. The counsel for the appellant argued the appeal on the basis of the grounds of the appeal memorandum that the respondent/complainant did not declare the details of items who sent through the parcel. He did not adduce any evidence to support his claim. But in the perusal of the records, we are seeing that there is no single piece of evidence produced by the appellant before the forum below. In this circumstance, it is the burden of the appellant to prove that what items sent by the complainant and undertaken by them. The point submitted by the counsel for the appellant is that the lawyer notice was issued to another party. The appellant is not at all having any connection with such an addressee/oriental company. Another point issued submitted by the counsel for the appellant is that the complainant kept mum about 2 years after the incident. 6. But, it is clearly seeing that the complainant who taken so much efforts to get a relief from the appellant/opposite party. The complainant contended that they approached to the opposite party on so many occasions and he issued a lawyer notice also. It is also the burden of the opposite party to prove that suppose the non declaration of items done by the sender (complainant). They want to take some precautionary steps to find out the contents of the parcel. 7. In view we are seeing an apparent error in the order passed by the forum below. The Consumer Redressal Forum established as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act to ensure speedy and cost free justice to the consumers. The Forum is not a Civil Court it need not to discuss any such a complicated compound question of law just like a Civil Court. It is par from a Civil Court. But we decide to modify the result portion of the order passed by the forum below. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part and set aside the direction of the forum below to pay Rs.3000/- as compensation and cost of Rs.600/-. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the value of the mobile phone to the complainant within one month time after the receipt of copy of the judgment. If any failure from the part of the opposite parties to comply the order the complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the complaint. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective dhasti. The points of the appeal discussed and answered accordingly. M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT S/L | 
