BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC 54/11.
THIS THE 20th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Veereshwar, Advocate, R/. H.No. 4-4-206, Sumangala
Nilaya, Zaheerabad, Raichur.
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENT :- The Authorized Person/Proprietor, The Professional
Couriers situated at 11-6-78, Brestwarpet, Opp: to SUCO Bank, Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to direct the opposite to fined out the booked
consignment and also to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% and cost of the complaint.
Date of institution :- 05-08-11.
Notice served :- 08-08-11.
Date of disposal :- 20-12-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. Aravind Patil, Advocate.
Respondent represented by Sri. A.Srinivas, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Gururaj, Member:-
This is a complaint filed by the complainant Sri. Veereshwara, Advocate against the Opposite the Authorized person/proprietor the Professional Courier, Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite to fined out the booked consignment and also to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% and cost of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, the complainant had booked a consignment on 14-06-11 addressed to the medical officer Primary Health Center, Turvihal, Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur containing material documents of a repudiated General Insurance Company and other documents which are to be produced before the jurisdictional court and office within the stipulated period but the Respondent had not delivered same to the addressee and also not returned to the complainant due to which the complainant contacted the Respondent many times and asked whereabouts of the consignment but the Respondent never taken care to respond properly nor traced out the consignment booked so far as a result the complainant put into much inconvenience which leads spoiling of bright future, career, status in the society etc., The complainant got issued legal notice on 07-07-2011 calling upon the Respondent to find out his booked above consignment, but even after receipt of the same the Respondent never cared to find out the consignment and not responded the complainant. The very act of the Respondent is clear cut picture of deficiency of service which is to be compensated for the sufferings, inconvenience, loss of status and income. Hence, he sought for compensation as prayed in the prayer.
3. The Respondent Professional Courier Authorized person/Proprietor appeared in this case through his Advocate and filed written version by admitting the booking of the consignment on 14-06-2011 to Turvihal, contended that, before booking of the consignment the Respondent has intimated to the complainant that, there is no service to Turvihal village/consignee but the complainant has requested to book the consignment and will intimate consignee to collect the consignment at Sindhanoor office personally and because of his request the consignment has been booked by this Respondent, even though there is no service to the place at where it is to be delivered.
Further it is contended that, the said consignment was not collected by the consignee at Sindhanoor office therefore same was returned to Raichur and in turn it has been sent to the complainant on 17-06-2011 through delivery boy by name Nagaraj but the complainant has refused to take back the consignment. Thereafter also after receipt of the legal notice from the complainant, the Respondent on 11-07-2011 once again tried to deliver the same through another delivery boy Anil Kumar even then also the complainant has intentionally refused to take back the consignment. The Respondent promptly informed the complainant about its non delivery. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of Respondent. So the complainant is not entitled for the claim made under this complaint as it is not maintainable neither in law nor on facts and there is also no cause of action has arisen, hence sought for dismissal of the same with exemplary cost.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of this Respondent as alleged.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative.
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as stated in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed and he was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4 are marked.
7. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Authorized person/Proprietor of opposite Professional Courier by name Suderraja was filed and he was noted as RW-1. Other two affidavit-evidence of Delivery boys of opposite courier by name Nagaraj S/o. Bheemanna and Anil Kumar S/o. Vishwanath Firangi they were noted as RW-2 and RW-3 respectively The documents field by opposite are marked at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3.
8. There is no dispute that, the complainant has booked the consignment on 14-06-2011 in the opposite courier in order to send the same to the Turvihal of Sindhanoor Tq. Further it is also not in dispute that, the said consignment was returned un-served. It is the case of the opposite that, even inspite of tried to give back the consignment to the complainant the complainant has refused to take the same. Further it is the case of the opposite that, the consignor has agreed to collect the consignment at Sindhanoor Opposite Office, therefore the consignment has been accepted on the request of the complainant as he is an advocate. Hence there is no deficiency on its part and the complainant has filed false complaint against them. The Respondent in order to support his case, he has relied upon Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 i.e, Returned unserved sealed cover i.e, consignment, Delivery Run Sheet dt. 17-06-2011 and another Delivery Run Sheet dt. 11-07-2011 respectively.
On perusal of the Ex.R-1 no doubt there is an endorsement as “Party will collect at Sindhanoor” as contended by the opposite. It is worthwhile to note here that, there is no signature of consignor on the said cover where such endorsement has been made. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that, the consignor has agreed to take delivery of the consignment at Sindhanoor. On the other hand, the complainant in his complaint has categorically denied the same. Therefore the contention of the opposite in this regard holds no good. If at all the complainant has given his consent regarding taking delivery of the said consignment at Sindhanoor instead of Turvihal. The opposite would have taken written consent from the consignor then, it would be a proper method and in turn it will give support to the opposite. But no such consent has been taken in return and even no signature has been taken under the said endorsement hence we have rejected the case of the opposite in this regard.
9. Further, on perusal of the another two documents ie., Ex.R-2 & Ex.R-3 Delivery Run Sheet of different dates which are alleged to be tried to deliver the consignment to the consignor/complainant by one Nagraj and Anil Kumar. In the said two delivery sheets it has been written as “Party Refused”. But in the said delivery sheets also there is no signature of any person. If at all, the two delivery boys have tried to return the consignment to the complainant/consignor, we do not find any reasons for what the delivery boys have put their signature where endorsement like “Party Refused” has been written. Apart from that, the said delivery run sheets are having some filling the blanks under each page wherein it has been written as Total number of documents taken, ___ Number of documents delivery__ Number of documents returned__ etc., it shows that, the delivery boy how many documents have received for delivery, how many documents have been delivered and how many documents have been returned etc., has to fill but in two alleged delivery run sheets are blank in this regard. Further, on perusal of the said delivery run sheets it appears that, the “party refused” endorsement has been shown lastly in each delivery sheet. These facts will clearly goes to show that, these are all after thought. Under such circumstances, the contention of the opposite cannot be accepted.
10. No doubt, the opposite has led delivery boy evidences as RW-2 & RW-3 of course in their evidence they have specifically stated that, they went to complainant for to return the consignment but their evidence cannot be accepted as they have not put their signature on the delivery sheets. Because the work entrustment to them by the Proprietor/Authorized person of the opposite itself, is not proved as they have not put their signature and they have not given their report according to their delivery sheet. Under the above circumstances, we hold that there is a deficiency on the part of the Respondent in settling the claim of the complainant. So we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
11. The complainant has sought direction regarding find out booked consignment and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. against the opposite. But, there is no any single piece of evidence to show that, the complainant has suffered with such huge amount from what he has suffered and damage has been caused to him. Under such circumstances, we hold that, the claim of the complainant regarding compensation is concerned, is very high, excessive and exorbitant one. Hence, we have rejected the claim of the complainant to that extent and come to the conclusion that, to award the global compensation of Rs. 8,000/- ie, towards deficiency in service of Rs. 3,000/-, and Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of proceeding and Rs. 2,000/- towards damage. Regarding the interest is concerned, we have awarded 9% interest on the total compensation amount from the date of filing of the complaint to till its realization.
POINT NO.3:-
12. In view of our finding on Point Nos-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 8,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the Opposite Courier from the date of complaint till realization of full amount.
Respondent courier is hereby given one month time from the date of the judgement for to make payment of the total amount with interest.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 20-12-11)
Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur.
