BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 9th day of January, 2006.
C.C.No.148/2005
S.Shayam Prasad Rao,
S/o S.Narasingha Rao,
Aged about 52 years,
R/o D.No.28, Bhaskar Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Branch Manager,
D.T.D.C. Courier Service,
Branch-II, Budhawara Peta,
Kurnool-2. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 4.1.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri M.R.Krishna, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt.C.Preethi, Member)
1. This Consumer Complaint of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000/- for deficiency of service, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, cost of the complaint and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant in the month of February, 2005 sent two envelops through opposite party booking point to Staff Reporter, Vaartha Daily News paper, Kurnool and to Staff Reporter, Andhra Jyothi, Kurnool vide receipts bearing Nos. H17666442 and H17666443. After some days the complainant collected the acknowledgements from the opposite parties booking point and was surprised to see that both the envelops were served on wrong addressee, immediately the complainant reported the matter to opposite party and requested to take appropriate action against to mis-service. But inspite of complainant’s regular enquiry no appropriate steps were taken against the person who is responsible for mis- carriage of service. Being vexed the complainant issued legal notice dated 5-4-2005 demanding payment of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony within a week from the date of receipt of this notice. But there was no response from the opposite parties hence, the complainant was constrained to file this complaint before the Forum for redressal.
3. In substantiation of this case the complainant filed the following documents viz. (1) Shippers copy of D.T.D.C Courier and Cargo Ltd., No.H17666443 (Receipt) (2) P.O.D copy of D.T.D.C Cargo Ltd., No.H17666443 (Acknowledgement) (3) Shippers copy of D.T.D.C Cargo Ltd., No.H17666442 (Receipt) (4) P.O.D copy of D.T.D.C Cargo No.17666442 (Acknowledgement) (5) Lawyers notice dated 5-4-2005 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite party and (6) Postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex.A5, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A6 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to opposite party and third party and suitebely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum has to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and filed written version.
5. The written version of opposite party denies the complaint averments has not maintainable either in law or on facts. It admits that the complainant sent two envelops through their office and the same were served on the correct addressee on 23-2-2005, our delivery boys also collected the signatures of the addressee in the delivery running sheet. But due to mistake the P.O.D copy was attached to some other covers, hence, the P.O.D copies were bearing some other addressee signatures. The said information was given to the complainant and they explained the said mistake to the complainant in detail to which the complainant accepted. It further submits that as per the courier service receipts, terms and conditions the opposite party’s liability is limited to the maximum of Rs.100/- only. Hence, the complainant if at all is entitled to compensation of Rs.100/- only. Hence, seeks for the dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.
6. In support to its case the opposite party relied on the following documents viz.(1) Delivery run sheet of D.T.D.C Courier service No.39570599 and (2) Delivery run sheet of D.T.D.C Couriers service No.39570600, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of its written version and the above documents are marked as Ex.B1 and B2 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant also relied on the third party affidavit of Ramasekar. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and the opposite party and third party suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on part of opposite party:?
8. It is the case of the complainant that he sent two letters on 28.2.2005 through opposite party’s booking point to Staff Reporter Andhra Jyothi vide Ex A.1 (Shipper’s copy) and to Staff Reporter Vartha vide Ex. A.3 ( Shipper’s copy) and the said letters are not delivered to the addressee but to delivered to some other address as per Ex A.2 and A.4, therefore alleges deficiency of service on part of opposite party. The opposite party did not dispute the fact that the complainant booked two covers at its booking point but disputed the delivery of covers, stating that P.O.D copy of the complainant’s cover were attached to some other covers, but the complainant’s covers were delivered correctly to the addressee of the said covers as per their delivery Run Sheet vide Ex B.1 and B.2.
9. According to the complainant he has sent two letters to the addressee of the covers but did not place any cogent material as to the contents of the said covers and damages he suffered for not delivered the said letters to the addressee. The Lawyer’s notice issued by complainant’s counsel dt 5.4.2005 vide Ex A.5, envisages that the coves of the complainant addressed to the addressee are served on wrong address and claiming damages of Rs.25,000/- and mental agony of Rs.25,000/- but failed to substantiate the claims made therein. The complainant except claiming exorbitant claim did not substantiate them by placing any relevant cogent material.
10. The opposite party in their defence stated that as per the courier service receipts terms and conditions the opposite party’s liability to be limited to the maximum of Rs.100/-. In the column marked as consignors signature in Ex A.1 and A.3 the complainant signed therein by accepting the conditions of opposite party’s liability for any loss and damage to the shipment to Rs.100/- only and also those terms and conditions set forth on the revere of Ex A.1 and A.3. The complainant thus by contributed his signature therein accepting the terms and conditions and thus there is valid agreement between the complainant and opposite party restricting the liability of opposite party in case of loss or damage to the consignment sent to Rs.100/- only. It is established law that when the complainant signed shippers copy which rules the agreement between the parties, the complainant is entitled to compensations as per terms and conditions of shippers copy.
11. In view of delivery of covers of the complainant to wrong address as per Ex A.2 and A.4 is manifestly demonstrative of gross negligence in service. Services of courier are engaged by consumer for quick and correct delivery and if couriers also makes mistakes by negligence the whole object or purpose of delivering articles by courier is defeated. Hence, to sum up on account of delivering covers of the complainant to wrong addressee there is clear deficiency of service on opposite party and the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.100/- only as per terms and conditions mentioned in the shippers copy. As the opposite party driven the complainant to Forum for redressal the complainant is entitled to costs of Rs.200/-.
12. In the result, the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.100/- as compensation and Rs.200/- as costs with in a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite party is liable to pay the above awarded amount with 18% interest from the date of default.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcriber by her corrected and pronounced in the open court this the 9th day of January, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Shipper copy of D.T.D.C Courier & Cargo Ltd., No.H17666443 (Receipt of booking)
Ex.A2 P.O.D copy of D.T.D.C & Cargo Ltd.,b.No.H17666443 (Acknowledgement)
Ex.A3 Shipper copy of D.T.D.C & Cargo Ltd., b.No.H17666442 (Receipt of booking)
Ex.A4 P.O.D copy to Ex.A3 (Acknowledgement)
Ex.A5 Legal notice, Dt.5-4-2005 complainant counsel to opposite party
Ex.A6 Postal Acknowledgement by opposite party.
Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:
Ex.B1 Delivery Run Sheet of D.T.D.C Courier Service No.39570599
Ex.B2 Delivery Run Sheet of D.T.D.C Courier Service No.39570600
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. M.R.Krishna, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
