West Bengal

Bankura

CC/54/2017

Sri Nityananda Patra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sky King - Opp.Party(s)

Self

13 Apr 2023

ORDER

   IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 54/2017

Date of Filing: 26.07.2017

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                              Ld. President.      

2. Rina Mukherjee                          Ld. Member. 

3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.

 

For the Complainant:  Self

For the O.P.Ld Advocate Chandi Charan Advaryyu

 

Complainant  

Sri Nityananda Patra, S/o Lata Sanatan Patra, Panchbaga, Kenduadihi, Bankura.

Opposite Party          

1.Sky King, Rashtala, Bankura   

2. Sky King, Mullick Street, Barabazar, Kaligodown, Kolkata- 700 007.

 FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT                    

                                                                                                                                       

Order No.32

Dated:13-04-2023

Both parties file hazira through advocate.

The case is fixed for argument.

After hearing argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The complainant’s case is that on 22-05-2017 a document being Consignment No.362967637 containing a Demand Draft of Rs.50,000/- drawn in favour of Amity University (Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh) was booked with O.P., Courier Service for dispatch to the Consignee in connection with the fees of 5^th Semester of the Complainant’s son but on 20-07-2017 Complainant’s son Sri Suman Patra studying at Amitty University informed the Complainant that the said Demand Draft was not delivered to the University and due to such unpaid amount as academic fees of 5^th Semester his son had to bear an additional fine of Rs.15,000/- to attend his further classes. On query through email sent by said Suman Patra the Complainant came to know that the document could not be delivered to the Addressee as it is out of their service area and accordingly the parcel document has been returned to its origin. Complainant has therefore asked for adequate compensation for non-delivery of the Demand Draft by the O.P. Courier Service to the Consignee.

                                                                                                                                                                                           Contd…..p/2

Page: 2

Both O.P. No.1 & 2 being the local Courier agent and Courier Service Head Office contested the case by filing a joint written statement contending inter alia that it is the duty of the O.P. No.1/Courier Agent to despatch the Demand Draft to the Head Courier Service at Calcutta/O.P. No.2 for transaction to the destination but it was not ultimately served to the Addressee as it was not within the service area of the O.P. and as such it has been returned to the complainant.  The O.P. has no intention to harass the complainant as they have no fault on their part.

-:Decision with reasons:-

Admittedly the Consignment received by O.P. No.1 is returned un-served for the reason that the location of the Consignee was not within the service area of the O.P. Courier Service but the Complainant has suffered due admission of his son in Amity University, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh for such non-delivery of the Demand Draft. There is no material on record to show that the complainant was informed of such administrative problem before receipt of the Consignment. The complainant has no actual knowledge about such practical difficulty and the O.P. also did not let him know regarding the service of the consignment. Had the complainant known it beforehand he could have avoided the Courier service of O.P. No. 2 but in spite of their knowledge of such practical difficulty the O.P. /Courier service authority booked the Consignment knowing fully well that it may not be delivered to the destination.

The act and conduct of the O.P. in this regard amounts to deficiency of service within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. The Commission has to assess the extent of loss of the complainant for such non-delivery of the Consignment. The record is full of materials in this regard that the complainant’s son had to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- for his 5^th Semester course. Had the Bank draft of Rs.50,000/- delivered in time the complainant need not spend such additional money. The O.P. cannot avoid their liability and deficiency in service by taking the plea that they have discharged their duty by sending the Consignment to the destination without confirming the fact that the area of the Addressee is beyond the service of their Courier Agency.

                                                                                                                                                                                            Contd…..p/3

                                                                                                            Page: 3

The facts and circumstances of the case suggest that the complainant is at best entitled to get Rs.15,000/- as compensation which they had to pay as late fine to the Semester course but the local courier agent of Sky King / O.P. No.1 was personally present at the time of hearing and entreated the Commission that they should not be penalized much as their business is now-a-days very dull because of the introduction of e-services.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the appeal of the O.P. the Commission likes to fix the compensation of Rs.7,000/- payable to the complainant in two installments  within the stipulated period.

The case therefore succeeds in part.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.s.

O.P.s are directed jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.7,000/- in two equal installments within two months from this date I/D the decretal amount may be recovered through execution process.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.  

 

    ____________________                ________________              _________________

  HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER          HON’BLE MEMBER