This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.I.Laxmi Narayana, Advocate for complainant; Notice of opposite party served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration this forum passed the following:
ORDER
(Per Sri R. Kiran Kumar, Member)
This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The averments made in the complaint are that the opposite party is running courier business at Sathupalli under the name and style of DTDC couriers and Cargo Limited. In the year 2010 the complainant had completed his graduation and prepared for I-CET entrance to attend the examination held on 18-5-2011, the complainant filled the ICET application by enclosing of necessary forms and documents and sent through the courier of opposite party on 15-3-2011 to the convener of ICET entrance examination, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam by way of paying courier charges of Rs.20/- and the opposite party had given a receipt for the same vide receipt No.H83159700. The complainant further submitted that his application was not received by the concerned authorities and also as can be seen from the Net service, no application was transmitted from the branch of opposite party to the convener, ICET entrance examination Andhra university, Visakhapatnam. And the complainant further submitted that on the negligence of opposite party branch, he lost the opportunity to attend ICET entrance examination, as such he lost one academic year valuable period and it was not compensated in any other mode. The complainant also submitted that he asked the opposite party about non sending of his application to the ICET convener, but the opposite party gave arrogant reply, on that the complainant issued legal notice on 4-6-2011 demanding to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of one year valuable period and the same was served and the opposite party issued reply notice on 2-7-2011 with false and baseless averments and that the complainant approached the forum.
On behalf of the complainant, the complainant filed the following documents and the same were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3.
Ex.A.1 - Courier receipt
Ex.A.2 - office copy of legal notice, dt.4-6-2011
Ex.A.3 - Reply notice, dt.2-7-2011.
On receipt of notice, opposite parties called absent. Heard oral argument on the complainant side. Now the point that arose for consideration is,
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
- To what relief?
Point No.1:
In this case the complainant filled the ICET application form and sent through courier of opposite party on 15-3-2011 to the Convener of ICET, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam by paying Rs.20/- towards service charges. The application of the complainant was not received by the concerned ICET authorities and from the net service it is noticed by the complainant that no application was transmitted from the opposite party authorities. For that the complainant lost the opportunity to attend examination, it is nothing but deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. As such the complainant approached the forum for redressal.
From the documents available on record, we observe that the complainant sent ICET application form through opposite party courier service, but the same was not received by the concerned ICET authorities and also the opposite party gave reply notice denying all the contents of the notice of the complainant and submitted that the claim made by the complainant as in notice, Ex.A.2, is tenable and against the beginning of the consignment of the courier service and the courier company is only reply for any claim upto Rs.100/- towards damages.
From the above it is crystal clear that the opposite parties having knowledge about the damage and sufferance of the complainant and only to avoid to pay the damages, they kept silent, which is nothing but deficiency of service on their part. As the opposite party failed to take precaution in delivering the application of the complainant, he lost the opportunity to appear in ICET entrance examination. So the opposite party is fastened with liability fixing a reasonable amount towards sufferance and loss of one academic year.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is just and proper to assess the loss of one academic year sufferance incurred to the complainant as Rs.10,000/-. Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-, within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 9% P.A. from the date of order till the date of actual payment and also awarded Rs.1,000/- towards costs of complaint.
Dictated to steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this 25th day of April, 2012.
President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined for complainant:- None
Witnesses examined for opposite parties:- None
Exhibits marked for Complainant:-
Ex.A1 - Courier receipt
Ex.A.2 - office copy of legal notice, dt.4-6-2011
Ex.A.3 - Reply notice, dt.2-7-2011.
Exhibits marked for opposite parties:-
- Nil -
President Member
District Consumer Forum, Khammam.
