DATE OF FILING: 03.09.2016
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.08.2017
O R D E R
Dr. Alaka Mishra, Member:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, alleging deficiency in courier service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant’s married daughter Mrs. P. Parimala who is working as a Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, CSI Branch, Coimbatore, booked through the professional couriers i.e. Domestic, International & Cargo, vide its Consignment No. 1372480 dated 05.04.2016 (a package of costly life saving medicines and costly patta sarees worth of Rs.22,000/- with all medical prescriptions of the complainant as well as his wife Mrs. R. Kavita (both are beneficiaries of consumer services). In the consignment there was mention of the name of consignee as R.Venugopal Rao, the complainant, Odisha as destination and the consigner, Mrs. P.Parimala expressed her humble intention was to reach the consignee, Sri R.Venugopal Rao, Advocate, L.I.G. Colony, Qr. No.31, Gajapatinagar Lane - 3, Berhampur at an early date as it was very urgent hence booked through the local Branch office, the Manager In charge, Professional couriers, Near, Satyanarayan complex Pvt. Ltd. First floor, Hotel Nirmalya, Urban Bank Road, Berhampur. The O.P.No.1 simply said after going through the computer data that the consignment is dispatched from origin CJB-1372480 dated 05.04.2016, but not yet reached and a good number of times this very Branch delivered under this name Sri R.Venugopal Rao, Advocate and enquiries were going on as per the complaint written messages, besides all personal phone calls to all O.Ps and on some false pretext or the other avoiding and passing out days/ months without any fruitful results. Thereby the beneficiaries in fact suffered like anything with all untold miseries and some life saving medicines were not readily available and by spending lot of money and valuable time, procured it from out stations and because of their sheer and blatant negligence and deficiency in service. The consignee-beneficiaries, the old aged parents of the consigner, P.Parimala, who also instructed her father-lawyer to issue an urgent registered legal notice to all the O.Ps about the missing/misusing the aforesaid consignment, I.D.No. 1372480 dated 05.04.2016, dated 16.05.2016 and all of them being acknowledged as per their endorsement as made on the AD forms and after passing out a considerable period of time, in a most dilly-dally manner given an evasive reply with all unmindful, having no head and tail out of it by exposing their guilty minds to the point of climax as it appears from their line of action and attitude. Thereby another re-reply to their reply legal notice being sent by one Shri S.Rajendran, Advocate, Coimbatore-18 dated 31.05.2016 by enclosing certain relevant papers to pin-down their legal reply notice as acknowledged by their lawyer and remained silent over the captioned matter and it is concluded under the presumption of law as admitted but till today it is solved and settled-out the missing consignment and the re-reply legal notice being sent on behalf of the consigner, P.Parimala dated 10.06.2016. The beneficiaries-consignee-complainant, are the worst victims in their demon-hands, who are the un-professionals in their day to day professional courier business by even violating their own written undertakings/ slogans and quality policy etc. The complainant and his beloved wife, Smt. R.Kavita also served a legal notices to all the O.Ps by registered post with AD dated 06.06.2016 and all of them rightly acknowledged and never mind even to reply to it and remained silent over the captioned matter in question, thereby left with no other immediate alternative than to initiate the complaint petition against them before the consumer Forum, as per the CP Act for seeking all tangible justice and equity. Because of their (O.Ps) inherent legal infirmities, latches lapses, irresponsible and violation of their own written undertakings/slogans/commitments etc. the consigner as well as the beneficiaries consignees badly suffered from all dimensions, morose, the health point of view with all mental agonies and untold miseries etc. and the O.Ps equally quite liable and answerable to the law of situation as and when warranted not only for the monetary legal claims, but also penal consequences as per law and administration of justice. The complainant-consignee is a bona fide consumer, residing at Gajapatinagar lane-3, Berhampur in the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum for all practical purposes. The cause of action for filing this complaint petition arose on the date of 05.04.2016, the consignment as booked through the M/s Professional couriers to deliver it to the consignee Sri R.Venugopal Rao, Advocate, Gajapatinagar, Lane-3 Berhampur vide Regd. I.D. No.1372480 from C.J.B not reached to its destination and there is no possible reply from the side of the O.Ps and also exchange of legal notices between the parties to the proceedings dated 16.05.2016, 31.05.2016, 10.06.2016 and 06.06.2016 and the subsequent events are coming within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum to try the same as the delivery of the said consignment and its Branch office at Urban Bank Road, Berhampur Town, Ganjam. The value of the consignment as booked through M/s Professional Couriers, C.J.B. 1372480 dated 05.04.2016 is of Rs.22,000/- only. Alleging deficiency in service on the parts of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay the value of the consignment of Rs.22,000/- along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards inherent deficiency in service, mental agony, harassment and Rs.20,000/- towards litigation expenses in the best interest of justice, equity and fair play.
3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties. The learned counsel Mr. Akhaya Kumar Samal, Advocate and Associate filed Vakalatanama and appeared on behalf of O.P.No.1 but not preferred to file written version. Hence he was declared ex-parte on dated 10.04.2017. Notices were issued against the O.P. No. 2 to 4 but they neither choose to appear nor filed any written version, hence they are declared set ex-parte on dated 09.03.2017. The matter was heard and reserved for orders on 21.6.2017 but the learned counsel for the complainant complied the orders of the Forum and filed documents along with affidavit in support of his case on 21.8.2017.
4. On the date of ex-parte hearing, the learned counsel for the complainant is present and submitted his case. During the course of hearing of the matter the complainant who is an advocate by profession orally submitted arguments and filed documents in support of his case placed in the case record and marked as Annexure I to IX. He has also submitted an affidavit in support of his case and also drew out attention towards the substantial documents with regard to his claim.
5. We have heard the matter at length from the complainant and also perused the complaint, written argument and also verified the documents and correspondences placed on the case record. We have also gone through the affidavit and have also examined the documents placed on the case record. As per his submission, the complainant is a beneficiary consumer under Consumer Protection Act which is beyond doubt or dispute. According to his complaint and as per his affidavit, his daughter was working as a Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, CSI Branch, Coimbatore, who booked through the professional courier service i.e. O.P.No.1 to 4 some valuable goods vide consignment No.1372480 on 5.4.2016 that was booked/originated from Coimbatore to Berhampur for delivery to Sri R. Venugopala Rao, the father of the consigner. The daughter of the present complainant, Smt. P. Parimala is the consigner who had booked the consignment to her father also not in dispute. It is also a fact on record that due to the latches and deficiency in service on part of the O.Ps the said consignment that was booked by the daughter of present complainant was not delivered to the consignee complainant. It is also a fact which is not denied by the O.P.No.3 since the reply of the advocate notice of the complainant through the counsel of O.P.No.3 Sri S. Rajendran, Coimbatore, proves that it was booked by Smt. P. Parimala, one of the employees of the Indian Overseas Branch who is the daughter of the present complainant and there was a contract between Indian Overseas Bank, Race Course Road, CSI Branch, Coimbatore -18 and the Professional Couriers. Hence, there is no doubt or dispute that the present complainant being the father of Smt. P. Parimala is a bona fide beneficiary consumer in this dispute. The reply of the advocate notice by the O.P.No.3 also discloses that there is no dispute that the daughter of present complainant was the consigner and the present complainant Sri R.Venugopal Rao is the consignee as is evident from Annexure –VII placed on the case record. As per the complaint and written argument of the complainant, his daughter had consigned a package of costly life saving medicines and patta sarees of Rs.22,000/- along with all medical prescriptions of the complainant as well as of his wife Smt. R. Kabita in that consignment to her father, the present complainant, which was not reached at Berhampur and misplaced somewhere and admittedly was not traceable by the O.Ps as contended. For that, the present complainant also issued legal notices to the O.P. No.3 on 16.5.2016 which was replied by the advocate for the O.P.No.3, Mr. S. Rajendran on 31.5.2016. Similarly, the complainant also issued another legal notice to O.P. No.1 on 06.06.2016. However, those legal notices were not yield any results and the O.Ps did not care to trace out the booked consignment. On perusal of the materials placed on the case record, we find that the reply of O.P.No.3 through his learned counsel Mr. S. Rajendran who has denied the cost of the consignment but admitted to have sent the consignment through O.P.No.3 since there was an agreement between the Indian Overseas Bank, Coimbatore Branch and the Professional courier service and contended that as per the said contract no valuables more than Rs.2,000/- could be sent except under insurance. It has also come to our notice that the daughter of the complainant, Smt. P. Parimala, Indian Overseas Bank, CSI Branch on several occasions has inquired about the delivery of the consignment but there was no correct reply provided to the consigner. On 12.04.2016, she wrote an email to CJB, the consigner to ensure the status of the courier consignment but there was no reply. Similarly, on 15.4.2016 and 20.04.2016, she had also written emails to the CJB to inform the status of the non-delivery of the consignment but there was evasive reply of missing and untraceable. On 25.4.2014 one of the executives of the CJB, Mr. M. Sivaraj replied the email and informed the daughter of the complainant that the consignment of Rs.22,678/- which was contained costly Sarees and medicines are personal valuables so should have been sent through pro premium service and since it was not traceable hence requested help allow more time to search through their regional office. From the aforesaid discussion, it is amply clear that it is an admitted fact that the O.P. No.3 who booked the consignment lost the same somewhere and could not find out due to missing of the consignment. From the correspondence, it is also very much clear that the O.P. No.3 though received the consignment but failed to deliver the same to the consignee complainant i.e. the father of the consigner Smt. P. Parimala. Besides that in this case though the O.P. No.1 appeared through his learned counsel Mr. A.K. Samal but did not prefer to file his written version and even not contested the case. Similarly, the O.P. No.2 to 4 are also declared ex-parte due to non-appearance even after receipt of notices from this Forum. The O.P.No.3 through his learned counsel Mr. S. Rajendran though replied the legal notice but even after receipt of the notice from this Forum did not prefer to file his version and not contested his case. In our considered view, when the O.Ps are not interested to controvert the version or complaint of the complainant, it is to be considered uncontroverted. In the absence of any versions from the side of O.Ps, we are constrained to accept the complaint of the complainant and feel that the complainant is entitled for the relief he claimed against the O.Ps. In the aforesaid fact and circumstance of the case, we allowed the claim of the complainant in toto and the O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant is liable to pay the cost of the consignment to the complainant.
6. In this case, the complainant has prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.22,000/- towards cost of the lost consignment along with to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service, mental agony and harassment. He has also prayed to direct the O.Ps to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost of litigation in the interest of justice. On the issue of compensation and cost, we would like to say that the claim of the complainant with regard to compensation is speculative one and he has not submitted any substantial documentary evidence to corroborate his loss. In our considered view he has claimed exorbitant amount which is not based on actual assessment of his loss. We are, therefore, not inclined to direct the O.Ps to pay any compensation in this case since the complainant has not filed any convincing documentary evidence regarding his actual loss hence he can’t claim such huge amount in shape of compensation. We would, therefore, like to direct the O.Ps to compensate the loss of the complainant on payment of total cost of the consignment and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation since the complainant was forced to file this consumer dispute against the O.Ps due to their gross negligence and deficiency in service. In the light of above discussions, deliberation and taking into account to the fact and circumstances of the case, we allowed the case of the complainant against all O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss of the complainant.
7. In the result, we direct the Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand) only to the complainant towards lost of his consignment. The O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only to the complainant towards cost of litigation. The aforesaid orders shall be complied by the O.Ps within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover the same under the relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to compensation.
8. The order is pronounced on this day of 22nd August 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of
