BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

                                        C.C.No. 63/2014

Dated this the 13^th  day of January 2017

(Date of Institution: 20.10.2014)

S. Mohan, son of Sivagurunathan

No.4, 4^th Cross, Bharathiyar Street

Vasantha Nagar, Villianur

Puducherry – 605 110.

                              ….     Complainant

Vs.

The Manager      

The Professional Couriers      

No. 167 Kamatchiamman Koil Street        

Puducherry-605 001.

                                                                              ….     Opposite Party

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A. ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

THIRU V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B.,

           MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT            :  Party-in-Person                            

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTY         : Thiru A.S. Vasakan, Advocate

O R  D  E  R

(By Thiru.A.ASOKAN, President)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs.30/- towards the charges received from the complainant; to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, loss of time and money and other expenses and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the litigation.

2.       The case of the complainant is as follows:

          That on 29.04.2014 the complainant sent a letter through the Collection Centre of opposite party situated at Kottaimedu, Villanur, to one G. Masilamani residing at Alumedu, P.N. Palayam Post, Panruti Taluk, Tamil Nadu by paying a sum of Rs.30/-.  At the time of booking, the opposite party did not object with respect to the above said address.  That the said Masilamani told the complainant that the above said letter was not delivered to him till 4.5.2014, but the opposite party informed the said Masilamani to come and collect the said letter from Nellikuppam Branch.  Whereas, the said Masilamani informed them that the distance between the Nellikuppam Branch and his residence is 6 kms and that he could not come and collect the said letter from them and it is the duty of the opposite party to deliver the said letter to him.  However, the opposite party did not deliver the said letter.  On 7.5.2014 the opposite party returned the said letter to the complainant alleging that they could not deliver the same.  The opposite party did not convey any regret and  also not returned the money paid by him which caused mental agony and loss of time to the complainant.  On 20.06.2014 the complainant sent a letter demanding a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and loss of time, however, till filing of this complaint, they have not given compensation to him.  However, on 25.06.2014 at 7.13 p.m. a person from opposite party company called over his cell phone informed that they will return the sum of Rs.30/- to the complainant.  Since the above act of the opposite party is a deficiency in service, the complainant filed this complaint. 

3.       In the Reply Version, the Opposite Party narrated the following:

          That on 29.04.2014, the complainant has booked a consignment through the opposite party, at the time of booking the collection centre has not raised any objection in respect of the address of the addressee.  The collection centre is not the direct staff of the opposite party and they do not know as to whether the addressee is residing within the service area.  The consignment was received by the Nellikuppam Branch on 30.04.2014.  Since the service is not extent to the remote village,6 Kilometers away from branch, they have called the addressee over cell phone explained the fact that they are not having service to the addressee’s village and requested him to visit the Branch office of the opposite  party situated at Nellikuppam to receive the consignment.  The addressee prolonged to receive the consignment and has not turned up to receive the same.  Waiting till 06.05.2014, this opposite party returned the consignment to the consignor assigning the reason that "No Service".  The opposite party stated that though they are offering the service to the General public to all the places where they are having regular bookings for the addressee’s location, even though, the service is not available and situated within 3 Kilometers from the Branch Office, they normally used to serve the consignments.  But in the present case, the village of the addressee is 6 kilometers away from the Branch Office.  Having no other way only the opposite party office called the addressee to receive the consignment since their service is not extent to his village. From the initiation of the company to till date except the complainant’s consignment no other consignment was booked to the addressee’s village.  The complainant and the addressee knowing fully well that the courier service is not extended to their addressee’s village, colluding with each other has sent the consignment, failed to claim the same at Nellikuppam Branch, has sent the letter for compensation for getting illegal gain from the opposite party.  Further stated that due to oversight the letter of the complainant was not replied.  The complainant has filed the present complaint with false, imaginary allegations with an ultimate aim to extract money by way of filing the present complaint before this Hon’ble Forum.  There is no iota of truth about the allegations found in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The opposite party submits that it is clearly stated in the consignment receipt itself in any event the opposite party’s liability for compensation is limited to Rs. 100/-.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.       The complainant has not chosen to subject him to examine him.  On the otherhand, on the side of opposite party, one Karunakaran, incharge was examined as RW1 and Ex.R1 has been filed. 

5.       Points for determination are:

1. Whether the complainant is the Consumer?
2. Whether the opposite party attributed deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

6.       Point No.1:

The complainant booked a consignment for valid consideration on 29.04.2014 with opposite party.  The document No.1  is the Shipper's copy of the consignment.   Hence the complainant is the consumer.

7.       Point No.2:

          We have perused the complaint, reply version, documents filed by the complainant and the Ex.R1, evidence adduced by RW1 and the written arguments filed by the opposite party.

8. The complainant's case is that he had booked a consignment vide document No.1 with the Collection Centre of opposite party situated at Villianur on 29.04.2014 to be delivered at Alumedu, P.N. Palayam Post, Panruti Taluk, Tamil Nadu situated six kilometers away from the opposite party's branch at Nellikuppam.   Since the opposite party did not have service to the address mentioned in the cover (document No.2), the opposite party returned the same to the complainant himself.  The complainant sent a letter vide document No.3 to the opposite party claiming compensation for the mental agony and loss of time.  Though the same was received by the opposite party vide document No.4, they have not replied for the same. 

          9. On the otherhand, the opposite party alleged that the Collection Centre staff is not their direct staff and they do not know that the addressee is residing within the service area.  The addressee is residing six kilometers away from Nellikuppam, where the opposite party's branch is situated.  The opposite party further alleged that they have used to serve the consignments within three kilometers from the Branch Office.  Further alleged that even though they have informed over phone to the addressee to come and collect the consignment in their branch office at Nellikuppam, the addressee only not received the same and hence, the opposite party returned the  consignment to the sender, the complainant herein.  The opposite party further stated that in order to get illegal gain, the complainant and the addressee colluded themselves and filed this complaint.  The learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that though the opposite parties did not have separate guidelines and procedures for their company, they have followed the Rules and Regulations of Indian Postal Act and the same has been expressed in their terms and conditions Ex.R1.  Hence, there is no iota of truth in the complaint of the complainant.   

10.     From the above facts and materials available on record, there is no dispute in booking the consignment by the complainant with the opposite party.  The main allegation of the complainant is that the consignment booked on 29.04.2014 by the complainant with the opposite party not delivered to the addressee.  The complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party on 20.06.2014 vide document No.3 for which the opposite party did not give any reply.

11.     The opposite party relied Ex.R1 the terms and conditions of their company.  Wherein, it is stated in point No. 3 "We request you not to enclose CASH in the courier consignment and not to book Jewels, Textiles, High Value gift articles, Share Certificates and Travel documents.  Our liability in case of any Loss or Damage to the consignment shall not exceed Rs.100/-".     In this case, there is no loss of damage occurred to the consignment entrusted.   The only dispute is that the said consignment was not delivered to the addressee as assured.   Further, on perusal of Ex.R1 in point No.4, the opposite party has stated that "…..please ensure that whether the network has an office at the destination where your consignment should reach.  If there is no office at the network kindly give special instructions to operations staff and ascertain the delivery details".  The document No.1  does not contain any terms and conditions in the overleaf thereon.  Moreover, at the time of booking document No.2, the complainant has clearly mentioned the address of the addressee.  When there is no terms and conditions printed overleaf of the shipper's copy, it is the bounden duty of the opposite party to inform the complainant as to whether they are having service at the address mentioned in document No.2.  Either the opposite party or the staff of Collection Centre informed the same to the complainant.  Hence, an inference could be taken that the opposite party is having services to the destination of the addressee.  Further, the opposite party has received a sum of Rs.30/- from the complainant vide document No.1 for delivering the cover to the consignee without any condition.  Once the amount is received, it is the duty of the opposite party to deliver the article to the addressee concerned. 

          12. Further, the learned Counsel for the opposite party argued that they are following the rules and regulations of the Indian Postal Act since they are not having separate rules and regulations for their company.  Undisputedly, any consignment or letter should through India Post, it will reach the destination where the consignment was sent.    The opposite party cannot enjoy the shelter under the guise of Indian Postal Act.  They are governed by Indian Couriers Act.  If an article is entrusted and the courier company also booked the same for valid consideration, it is deemed to be accepted to deliver the article to the addressee in person.  They cannot escape from the liability that they are not having service to such area in the later stage.  It is also the duty of the opposite party to inform the shipper about their availability of service in a particular place.  Hence, the plea of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted. 

          13. In this case, the opposite party accepted the consignment to deliver the same to the address mentioned in document No.2 by getting valid consideration for such service, but failed to discharge their legal obligation which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  Hence, the complainant is entitled for compensation for mental agony and loss of time. 

14.     Point No.3:

In view of the decision taken in Point No.2, this complaint is hereby allowed with the following directions:

1. The Opposite party is hereby directed to return a sum of Rs.30/- to the complainant.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of  Rs.5000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service;
3. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Dated this the 13^th  day of January 2016.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:   NIL

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:

RW1           28.04.2016           Karunakaran  

COMPLAINANTS' EXHIBITS:     NIL

OPPOSITE PARTIES EXHIBITS:

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

1. ASOKAN)

    PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

MEMBER