By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:-
The complaint is filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 for an Order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and loss sustained to the complainant due to the deficiency of service of opposite party and Rs.2,000/- towards cost the proceedings.
2. The complainant's case in brief is as follows:- The complainant's elder brother residing at Shornur took railway ticket for a sum of Rs.2,490/- for a train journey of complainant, his sister Gracy and brother Jeby from Kozhikode to Pune and send the ticket through courier service of opposite party to the address of complainant on 26.06.2013. The proposed journey was fixed on 05.07.2013. But the opposite party returned the courier on 03.07.2013 to the sender stating that “they could not locate the address, phone no response”, because of this the complainant had to arrange a taxi from Vaduvanchal to collect the tickets from his brother residing at Shornur. The opposite party had Branch office at Vaduvanchal nearly half kilometer away from the residence of complainant. The complainant is residing at Vaduvanchal with family for the last 40 years and the staff of Vaduvanchal Branch knows the complainant personally for many years. The complainant received couriers even before the incident from Vaduvanchal branch many times. More over, the complainant personally visited the branch office of opposite party at Vaduvanchal and made enquiry about the arrival of courier on 28.06.2013, 29.06.2013 and 01.07.2013. But he was send back by the staff stating that it is not received. The courier was send on 26.06.2013 from Shornur. It was due to the sheer negligence and deficiency of service from the side of the opposite party, the courier was not delivered to the complainant and hence returned. The complainant hired taxi in order to collect the tickets to avoid further delay and spent Rs.7,000/- towards the Taxi charge. Because of the act of the opposite party, the complainant had to suffer much mental agony and financial loss. Aggrieved by this, the complainant preferred this complaint before the Forum.
3. On receipt of complaint, the Forum send Notice to the opposite party and the notice served to the opposite party on 25.07.2013. The opposite party appeared before the Forum and Adv. Bineesh. P. D and Rajesh. M. Menon filed Vakalath for the opposite party on 23.08.2013 and sought time for version. The opposite party did not file version even after the lapse of many postings and on 25.01.2014, the opposite party was set ex-parte and the evidence of the complainant was adduced and Exts.A1 to A3 series were marked. Heard the counsel for complainant.
4. On perusal of complaint, proof affidavit, documents of Exts.A1 to A3 series, the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant produced documents which were marked as Ext.A1 to A3 series to prove his case. Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the opposite party to the brother of complainant at the time of sending the courier. Ext.A2 is the return memo issued by the Branch office of the opposite party to the sender and Ext.A3 Series (2 Nos) are the train tickets purchased from Shornur Railway station for the journey. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party did not serve the courier due to their deficiency of service. The contention of the complainant is unchallenged. It is up to the opposite party to deny the averments of complaint. The opposite party remained ex-parte even though they have received notice. There is nothing to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Exts.A1 to A3 series produced by complainant goes to show that the complainant's brother took the railway tickets and sent it property to the address of complainant. The reason shown in Ext.A2 is not self explanatory. By analyzing the evidence in toto, this Forum reached to a conclusion that there is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite party. The Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favor of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get the cost and compensation.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand) only being the Taxi charge incurred by the complainant to collect the tickets from Shornur and is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand) only towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only towards cost of the proceedings. The opposite party is directed to pay the whole amount within 30 days of the receipt of this Order. If the opposite party not complying the Order within the specified time, the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole amount till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of March 2014.
Date of Filing:17.07.2013.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Jaison (Affidavit).
Witness for the Opposite Parties:
Nil.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Receipt. Dt:26.06.2013.
A2. Return Memo. Dt:03.07.2013.
A3(series). Train Tickets (2 Nos).
Exhibits for the opposite Parties.
Nil.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
