DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 15th day of June 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 01/09/2011
(C.C.No.145/2011)
S.Ajikumar
S/o.Zacharias,
‘Aradhana’,
Near St.Joseph’s School,
Veettampara, Varode,
Ottapalam - Complainant
(By Adv.Ragesh.N)
V/s
1.The General Manager,
Franch Express Network Pvt.Ltd.,
No.30, ‘U’ Block, 10th Street,
Anna Nagar, Chennai - 40
(By Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan)
2.The Manager,
Ganesh Enterprises,
Penta Tower, Main Road
Ottapalam,
Branch Code : OTP 807
(By Adv.G.Ananthakrishnan) - Opposite parties
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant had sent a consignment to his brother Balu V.G. who is working as Police Constable, in his office address on 17/5/2011 through 2nd opposite party. The complainant is working as the Amin of Ottapalam Sub Court. The 1st opposite party is a company providing courier services and 2nd opposite party is the branch office. The complainant stated that he had send the consignment enclosing his original driving license and other records for its renewal, which is to be renewed on or before 24/5/11. The 2nd opposite party made to believe the complainant that the consignment will be delivered on the very next day and imposed a service charge of Rs.15/- The addresses and the mobile phone numbers of both the parties were clearly written on the consignment. The opposite party miserably failed to deliver the consignment on time and when the complainant enquired about the 2nd opposite party has given irresponsible reply and misbehaved towards the complainant. On 25/5/2011 the complainant received an intimation from the 2nd opposite party that “ the tapal returned to the sender with a reason N/S/A.” According to the complainant the addressee Mr.Balu V.G. is a Civil Police officer working in Parassala Police Station. Due to the failure of opposite parties in delivering the courier, the complainant lost his opportunity to renew his driving license and it became expired. On 2/6/11 the complainant sent a legal notice to opposite parties. After receipt of notice the opposite party caused a reply on 24/6/11 with all false allegations. The act of opposite parties amounts to huge loss and mental strain to the complainant. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to
1. Pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and strain caused due to deficiency in service
2. Pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the loss incurred due to the expiry of driving license
3. Pay cost of the proceedings.
Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The complainant had entrusted a sealed cover on 17/5/2011 to be delivered to Sri.V.G.Babu at Parassala, as the addressee was not found the cover was duly returned to the sender with out any delay. On enquiry it was learned that the addressee was on camp duty. The opposite parties had sincerely and properly performed their duties and there is no failure on their part in delivering the cover and there is no deficiency in service. The complainant is not entitled to receive any relief as prayed for. Besides as per terms and conditions of carriages agreed between the parties, the opposite party’s liability is limited to a sum of Rs.100/- only. Hence the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.
On 30/11/11 complaint dismissed for default. Thereafter complaint restored as per order in I.A. 612/11. Then the earlier counsel for opposite parties appeared submitted that the company is closed, they have no instruction. Hence opposite parties set exparte.
Complainant filed affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A4 marked. Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No.1 & 2
We perused relevant documents on record. Ext.A1 is the consignment sent by the complainant through 2nd opposite party and mentioned the address and mobile numbers. In the complaint, Ext.A1 the consignment, Ext.A2 the receipt shows the name of addressee was Balu.V.G. In the version the opposite parties stated the name of addressee was Babu.V.G. Ext.A3 is the lawyer notice sent by the complainant and Ext.A4 the reply notice sent by the opposite parties. According to the complainant the 2nd opposite party made to believe him that the consignment will be delivered on the very next day. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite parties. In Ext.A1 shows that RTN sender, Reason N/S/A No explanation or verification was mentioned in Ext.A1. The complainant stated that the consignment enclosing his original driving license and other records for its renewal, which is to be renewed on or before 24/5/11. No documentary evidence produced by the complainant to show that the driving license renewed on or before 24/5/11. Moreover the complainant has not produced evidence to show the loss incurred due to the expiry of driving license. Admittedly the complainant had entrusted a sealed cover on 17/5/11 to be delivered to V.G.Balu through 2nd opposite party and the addressee was not found, the cover returned to the sender.
The opposite parties not filed affidavit and supporting documents. In Ext.A4 the reply notice stated that the addressee Mr.Babu, who is a Police constable working at Parassala Police Station which is about 13km away from Neyyattinakara clearly shows that due to his nature of work, he may not available at the address as mentioned in the letter. After receiving the consignment the opposite parties are not raised objection to deliver the consignment. No documentary evidence was produced by the opposite parties to show that the addressee was not available at the time of delivery of consignment.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. In the result complaint partly allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 15th day of June 2012.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Consignment sent by the complainant through 2nd opposite party dated
17/5/11
Ext.A2 – Receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant
dtd.17/5/11
Ext.A3 & A3(a) – Copy of lawyer notice issued to the opposite party opposite
parties by complainant’s counsel with postal receipts and
acknowledgment cards dated 2/6/11
Ext.A4 – Reply notice sent by 1st opposite party to the complainant’s counsel
dated 24/6/11
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Cost Allowed
Rs.1,000/- allowed as cost of proceedings.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 30th day of November, 2011
Present : Smt.Seena.H. President
: Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K, Member Date of filing: 01/09/2011
CC / 145 / 2011
S. Aji Kumar,
S/o Zacharias,
’Aradhana’,
Near St. Joseph’s School, - Complainant
Veettampara,
Varode, Ottapalam
(BY ADV. RAGESH. N)
Vs
1. The General Manager,
Franch Express Network Pvt. Ltd.,
No. 30, ’U’ Block, 10th Street,
Anna Nagar, Chennai- 40.
- Opposite parties
2. The Manager,
Ganesh Enterprises,
Penta Tower, Main Road,
Ottapalam,
Branch Code : OTP 807
(BY ADV. ANANTHAKRISHNAN & K.B. PRIYA)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
Complainant no representation. Opposite party represented. Posted for the affidavit of complainant as last chance. Sufficient time already granted. No affidavit filed. Hence complaint dismissed for default.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of November, 2011
Smt. Seena. H
President
Smt. Preetha. G. Nair
Member
Smt. Bhanumathi. A. K
Member
