O   R   D   E   R

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps. to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the medicine, expenses for the communication made with the O.Ps. for not delivering the consignment and to award cost on the following averments:

          The complainant booked a parcel of rare Ayurvedic medicines which is worth Rs.5,000/- at Cheepurupalli branch on 15-9-2013 vide consignment No.16339 to the address of Sri P.Balaram, Guntur.  The O.P.NO.2 received the said medical parcel and took Rs.100/- towards charges for delivering the consignment to P.Balaram.  A receipt was issued by O.P.2 evidencing the said transaction.  On 18-9-2013 the complainant contacted P. Balaram to know about the receipt of above parcel upon which Balaram told the complainant that he did not receive the parcel so far.  The complainant immediately approached the 2^nd O.P. and intimated the said fact to him upon which the 2^nd O.P. perused the matter to see that the parcel is delivered to Balaram.  The complainant had to move many a time to the office of 2^nd O.P. to know about the delivery of said consignment but of no avail.

          The complainant got issued a notice to the O.Ps. 1 and 2 on 15-10-2013 and after receiving the said notice the 2^nd O.P sent a copy of letter dated          21-9-2013 issued by 1^st O.P. to him.    The Manager, Guntur simply stated in the said letter that the consignment was missed in their operations and asked him to convey their regrets for causing inconvenience to the complainant and Balaram.  It is averred that the O.Ps. committed willful neglect and caused inconvenience to the complainant and Balaram and as there is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. in rendering their duties the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

          The 2^nd O.P. filed counter traversing material allegations made in the complaint and has averred that the complainant booked the parcel on                     15-9-2013 vide consignment No. 16339 to the address of Sri P.Balaram, Guntur and has collected Rs.100/- towards courier charges and issued a receipt to that effect.  It is averred that he is just a franchisee of the Professional Couriers for Cheepurupally locality only and his duty is very limited for which he is paid commission only.  It is averred that he is neither an employee or partner of the company and as per terms and conditions of agreement, his duty is to book parcels by receiving courier charges.  It is averred that the complainant approached him and stated that the consignment was not received by the consignee upon which he immediately contacted the officials at Guntur and Vizianagaram over phone about non-delivery of consignment upon which he received a letter from the Manager, Professional Courier stating that the consignment was received by them on 18-9-2013 and on the next day the same was missed in their office.

          It is averred that the 2^nd O.P. has performed his duty promptly and as there is no negligence on his part and as there is no deficiency of service the complaint is liable to be dismissed against him.  It is averred that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and as the complaint merits no consideration, the same is liable to be dismissed. 

          In support of complainant’s case he filed affidavit evidence of P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.5.  On behalf of 2^nd O.P. he too filed the affidavit evidence of R.W.1 and got marked Ex.B.1 to B.4.  The counsel for both the parties filed respective brief written arguments and also addressed oral arguments.

          Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for?

          Basing on the material placed on record the learned advocate for complainant has contended that O.P.2 in his counter and affidavit evidence has clearly admitted about booking of parcel by the complainant at Cheepurupalli and also the missing of the said parcel in the office of 1^st O.P. at Guntur and as there is dereliction of duties and deficiency of service on the part of the men of O.Ps. the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.  As against the above said contention the learned advocate for the 2^nd O.P. has contended that there is no deficiency of service or dereliction of duties on the part of men of 2^nd O.P. and as the 2^nd O.P. has promptly reacted for not delivering the medical parcel to Sri P.Balaram at Guntur, he is not a necessary party to this case and for not impleading the Manager working at Secunderabad, the complaint is bad in law and is therefore, liable to be dismissed. 

          Ex.A.1 is the receipt dt.15-9-2013 issued by 2^nd O.P. to the complainant evidencing the booking of parcel on payment of Rs.100/- towards transportation and delivery of the medical parcel to P.Balaram.  Ex.A.2 is the office copy of lawyer’s notice dt.15-10-2013 issued by the counsel for complainant about non delivery of medical parcel to Balaram.  Ex.A.3 is the postal acknowledgement evidencing the issuance of Ex.A.2 notice.  Ex.A.4 is the copy of letter sent by 2^nd O.P. about missing of the parcel at the office of 1^st O.P.   The 2^nd O.P. has also filed the couriers manifest bearing No.19205 address to counsel of the complainant and acknowledgment showing receipt of consignment note No.19205 address to counsel of the complainant and got the same marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4.  As seen from the above said documents it is manifest that the complainant having paid Rs.100/- towards delivery charges at the office of 2^nd O.P. for transporting and delivering the consignment to the consignee and when the parcel was not delivered he approached 2^nd O.P. to get the parcel delivered.  But as per letter issued by the Manager, Professional Courier, Guntur the parcel was missed.  As we have already stated supra in the counter of 2^nd O.P. he has clearly admitted that the complainant booked a parcel on 15-9-2013 vide consignment No.16339 to deliver the same to Balaram at Guntur and paid a sum of Rs.100/- towards courier charges.   The 2^nd O.P. has taken a plea that he is just a franchisee of  Professional Couriers and his duty is very limited and he is paid commission for booking the letters and parcels and he is neither the employee nor the partner of the company and as such he is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  A copy of the franchisee agreement is not furnished by him to support his case.

          To substantiate his contention he did not file any other document to show that he is just a franchisee of Professional Couriers.  In the complaint it is clearly mentioned that 2^nd O.P. is the Branch Manager, Professional Couriers, Kaspa Street, Cheepurupalli.  In the affidavit evidence as R.W.1 he styled himself as the Branch Manager, Professional Couriers, Cheepurupalli.  If really he is not the Branch Manager and is just a franchisee of Professional Courier he would have styled himself as such in his affidavit but he did not do so.  Though he has acted promptly on receiving the oral complaint from the complainant about non-delivery of consignment, he cannot escape his liability and cannot contend that the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties.

In a decision in (2013) CJ 1044 (NC):  MAHINDERA LIFESPACE DEVELOPERS LTD., Vs SUNIL JASUJA AND OTHER, RUPINDER SINGH OBEROI AND OTHERS

Wherein it is held: 14.   It is well settled that a person may also be added as a party to the suit, even though he is not a necessary party and no relief is claimed against him, if his presence is necessary for complete and final decision of the questions involved in the suit.

          In view of the principles laid down in the decision cited supra though a person is not a necessary party and no relief is claimed against him such person can be impleaded as a party for just adjudication of the case.  Coming to case on hand the 2^nd O.P. booked the parcel by receiving Rs.100/- from the complainant and he has promptly acted in contacting the Manager at Guntur to know as to why the parcel was not delivered to the consignee.  Hence, his presence is very much necessary in this complaint as the initial act in booking the parcel was done at his office at Cheepurupalli.  Hence, he cannot be construed to be not a necessary party in this complaint. 

          As seen from Ex.B.2 which is the original of Ex.A.4, a letter was sent by the 1^st O.P. to 2^nd O.P. stating that the consignment bearing No.16339 was received from Cheepurupalli and the said consignment was missed on the next day in their operations and requested to consider their mistake and to inform the consignee about the missing of consignment.  Since the 1^st  O.P. has admitted about the missing of consignment at their office the O.Ps. cannot escape their liability.

In a decision in (1996) 2 CPR 178:  Krishnendu Bhattacharya Vs DHL World Wide Express:

Wherein it is held:  Non-delivery of envelop by a Courier Service is deficiency in service & condition regarding compensation on the receipt is not binding upon claimant.

Similarly in another decision in (1993) 2 CPR 368 / (1993) 2 CPJ 988 : NIRMAL PANDA Vs. POST MASTER GENERAL & OTHERS:

Wherein it is held:  Delay in delivery or non-delivery of article received for delivery at destination to the addressee is a deficiency in service.

In view of the principles laid down in the decisions cited supra when there is non-delivery of the article to the consignee it amounts to deficiency of service.

          Coming to case on hand the 2^nd O.P. in his counter and affidavit evidence has clearly admitted about non-delivery of medical parcel to Balaram.  Since there is deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. the complainant is entitled to get the cost of consignment as well as damages.  Though the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.8,000/- for causing inconvenience and Rs.17,000/- towards damages from the O.Ps, he did not place any cogent evidence to prove as to how he is entitled to get such huge amount towards damages for non- delivery of medical parcel.

In a decision in IV (2003) CPJ 89 (NC) :  M/S GURU NANAK PLASTIC INDUSTRIES Vs. CHAIRMAN, RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD JAIPUR

9. Before we conclude, we may add that it has become a practice for many complainants in the complaints to claim damages which has no co-relation with the loss suffered and these inflated amounts are stated with a hope that some amount would become payable.  This is a practice which must be discouraged.

As seen from the dicta laid down in the decision cited supra the claim of damages is to be co-related with the loss suffered.  Coming to case on hand the complainant sustained loss of Rs.5,000/- for not delivering the medical parcel which is worth Rs.5,000/-.  Though he made correspondence and personally went to the office of the 2^nd O.P. at Cheepurupalli to know as to why the parcel was not delivered, no evidence is forthcoming to believe as to how much amount was spent for the said purpose.  Since the parcel was not delivered to the consignee the complainant must have suffered inconvenience and mental agony.  Hence, to meet the ends of justice we deem it fit to award a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards damages.

          IN THE RESULT, THE COMPLAINT IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE O.PS. ARE DIRECTED TO PAY A  SUM OF RS.7,000/- FOR THE LOSS OF MEDICAL PARCEL AND FOR CAUSING MENTAL AGONY TO THE COMPLAINANT AND ARE FURTHER DIRECTED TO PAY A SUM OF RS.1,000/- (RUPEES ONE THOUSAND ONLY) TOWARDS COSTS WHICH INCLUDES THE ADVOCATE FEE OF RS.500/- (RUPEES FIVE HUNDRED ONLY).  THE O.PS. ARE DIRECTED TO COMPLY THIS ORDER WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM TODAY.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 19^th day of August, 2014.

Member                                                           President.

CC. 75 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1                                                                               

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Receipt No.16339 dt.15-9-2013
2. Ex.A.2 Office copy of Regd.lawyer’s notice dt.15-10-2013
3. Ex.A.3 Acknowedgements
4. Ex.A.4 copy of letter dt.21-9-2013 sent by 2^nd O.P.
5. Ex.A.5 Receipt dt.13-9-2013 for Rs.5,525/-

For O.P:-   

1. Ex.B.1 Couriers Manifest dt.16-9-2013
2. Ex.B.2 Letter by Professional Couriers dt.21-9-2013.
3. Ex.B.3 Consingment note No.19205 dt.11-11-2013.
4. Ex.B.4 consignment note No.19205 dt.11-11-2013.    

                                                                                                                            President