BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; BELGAUM.
DATE: July25,2016
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 80/2016
Complainant/s: Karunakar S/o Narayan Shetty
Age:40 years, Occ: Artist,
R/o:157/1537,Parimal C.H.S,
VSNL quarters,New Tilak nagar,
Chembur, Mumbai-400089.
(Adv: Shri.N.H.Patil)
v/s
Respondent/s:1) The Manager,
The Professional Courier Service,
Corporate Office (W.R),
Diamond House, Ground floor,
New link road, Oshiwara,
Jogeshwan (West),Mumbai-400102.
(Adv:Shri.R.N.Urankar)
2) The Manager,
The Professional Courier Service,
No-3,1st Floor,”Gurukrupa”
Kaviraj Marg, Bailappanavar Nagar,
Hubli-580020.
(Exparte)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay an amount of Rs;50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. towards the compensation for deficiency of service and negligence and to direct to reimburse the travel expenses incurred by the complainant and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
The case of the complainant is that, the complainant had consigned the shipment on 25/1/2016 through R-1 branch to deliver to the consignee/advocate at Dharwad. The consignment contained important documents relating to the pending case of the complainant and were to be filed in the court on 30/1/2016. The complainant was under impression that the consignment will be delivered to his counsel at Dharwad within 28th Jan 2016 and to the maximum it will be delivered by 29/9/2016. On 28/1/2016 the complainant contacted the Respondent No.2 a branch office of R-1 and enquired the status of the consignment. However no proper response from R-2. Thereafter the complainant learnt consignment reached Hubballi on 28/1/2016 at 12:01 and it was redirected to Mumbai instead of delivering it to the consignee the counsel of the complainant . Knowing the facts of redirected the complainant in order to handover the documents, having no other option travel to Dharwad and spent Rs;5000/- . On 2/2/2016 the complainants counsel received the consignment sent through R-1 which was suppose to delivered on or before 29/1/2016 as per the approximate timeline mentioned by the R-1 branch office at Vile Parle. Coming to know the deficiency in service the complainant issued legal notice on 9/2/2016 to the respondent seeking reliefs . But no response from the respondents. Delivering the consignment beyond scheduled time and redirecting the consignment to Mumbai caused inconvenience to the the counsel of the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
In response to the notice issued by this Forum respondent No1 appeared while R-2 remained absent despite service of notice. Hence exparte proceedings initiated against the R-2. The R-1 admits the written Version in detail contending that the very complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either on law or on facts and to dismiss the complaint as per Sec. 26 of the C.P.Act. Further the answering Respondent denied all the complaint awarements in toto, and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. Among such other admissions and denials the answering respondent admits booking of consignment by the complainant and delivery of the same to the consignee. Further the answering respondent taken contention that the complaint is not maintainable on the grounds of jurisdiction of the Forum to adjudicate the same , cause of action and liability to pay compensation and prays for dismissal of the complaint on the above grounds. Further the answering respondent taken contention that the extent of liability in accordance with the terms and conditions of the consignment receipt . Over all denying the deficiency the answering respondent prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether this Forum has got jurisdiction to adjucate te complaint?
- Whether complainant has proved there was deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?
- Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief sas claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavits. The complainant relied on documents. Heard. The R-1 relied on citations. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- Affirmative
- In positive
- In positive but accordingly
- As per order
Citations relied by the respondent:
- Courier service digest page 551 item No.9 case law
- AIR 1996 SC 2508
- Appeal No.99/1999 Manager Professional Courier V/S Prasad M.R. KSCDRC Tiruvantpur
- CC 608/1998 DCF Thane
Reasons
Points 1 and 3
On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that the complainant had booked consignment with Respondent No.1 to be delivered to the consignee and the same was delivered is not disputed .
Now the question to be determine whether the consignment is delivering to the consignee within time , and not delivering the same within time caused loss to the complainant as such the respondent has committed deficiency in service if so, for what relief the complainant is entitle.
Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetitions.
As properly discussed supra the respondent has taken specific contention that cause of action has been taken place at Mumbai the present complaint filed before this Forum bar the jurisdiction as such the present complaint is not maintainable. In view of the above said contention the issue No.1 is framed and taken for consideration. As contended by the both the parties no doubt the consignment has booked at Mumbai to be delivered to the consignee at Dharwad . As such the cause of action will be both at Mumbai as well as at its destination at Dharwad where the consignment to be delivered. Hence the present complaint is filed before this Forum has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the same accordingly Issue No.1 is answered affirmatively.
Whereas the case of the complainant is that he booked the consignment with respondent No.1 office at Mumbai on 25/1/2016 which contains court case documents to be filed before the court on 30/1/2016 with an expectation that the consignment will be delivered to his advocate at Dharwad before 30/1/2016. But the said consignment was delivered on 2/2/2016 i.e.,after the hearing Date which was fixed for filing documents , hence the complainant put to inconvenience and loss. In support of these contentions the complainant produced consignment tracking details Ex.C-3(a) and (b) and submits the consignment reached R-2 at Hubballi office on 28/1/2016 by 12;01 :02 hours and same was redirected to Mumbai R-1 office again it was redirected to Bangalore office then only on 2/2/2016 the same was delivered to the consignee at Dharwad. Hence there is negligence on the part of the respondent which amounts to deficiency in service , as such prays for compensation/reliefs. On looking into the tracking documents EX.C-3(a) & (b) it is evident that though the consignment reached R-2 office without delivering to the consignee it was returned to the R-1 as such unnecessarily delay has been caused in delivering the consignment to the consignee. Moreover the respondent fails to explain why and under what circumstances though the consignment reached the destination of delivery to consignee to the office of R-2 belongs to R-1 redirected the consignment to R-1 Office even though when the consignment bears proper and correct address and cellphone details of consignee. As such the complainant has established his case of deficiency in service against the Respondent .
Further complainant pleaded and contended that after came to know of the fact the consignement was not delivered to the consignee/his advocate with no other option in order to hand over the documents in time the complainant himself traveled to and pro from Mumbai to Dharwad and vise versa and spent Rs: 5000/- In support of this and expenses incurred towards the travel the complainant relied on Journey tickets Ex.C-7(a) and (b). On perusal of the same those are journey tickets Dtd.29/1/2016 Mumbai to Hubli and ticket Dated 31/1/2016 from Hubli to Mumbai. The persons traveled name is mentioned as
Mr. Mmandir Yogi and Mr.Kiran Shetti respectively. But no name of complainant appeared in the travel tickets. Further perusal of the same reveals different persons name has been entered in the to and pro tickets, by this evident that either the complainant nor his authorized agent has not been traveled, as contended by the complainant. If really, if the complainant would have travelled personally in the said travel ticket his name must have entered, but not so. Otherwise if the complainant had sent his agent to deliver the documents to his advocate why different persons name has been entered in Ex.C-7(a) & (b). By this it is evident that the complainant has created Ex.C-7(a) (b) to claim false claim. So it can not be believed the complainant himself travel and deliver the documents to his advocate. Further in order to claim Rs;50,000/- compensation as claimed by the complainant the complainant did not produced any documents before this Forum to show that due to delayed by late delivery of consignment the complainant has sustained loss. Hence the complainant is not entitle for such a huge amount as claimed. However as per our discussions complainant is entitle for the relief but notto an extent as claimed by him. With regard to the entitlement of the relief this Forum would like to relay on 2016(I) CPR 610(NC) Tapas Midya V/s Trackon Courier Pvt.Ltd. and another Wherein it is held – Deficiency in Service- Quantum of compensation-Consumer Forum in event of deficiency in service on part of service provider can justifiably award compensation to consumer – compensation has to be in proportionate to loss or damage suffered by consumer on account of deficiency in service.
On the other side LC for respondent contended there is no deficiency on the part of respondent in accordance with terms and conditions printed and agreed by the complainant on the rear side of EX C-1 courier receipt. So also extended his argument submitting that in the event of liability only to an extent of Rs;100/- and not exceeding to it. With regard to the liability of the respondent in accordance with the agreed terms and conditions of the Respondent establishment by the complainant as displayed in Ex.C-1 the respondent relied on affore cited judgement. Those relayed judgement are very old judgements i.e. Earlier to 2000 are not applicable to present Scenerio as the posission of law and its applicability subsequent to those judgements has been drastically changed. Further also argued in the absence of non- impleading consignee as party to the complaint and in the absence of evidence of consignee complaint is not maintainable. Since the facts of late delivery of the consignment is latent as per Ex.C-3(a) & (b) no much additional evidence is required to prove the negligencey on the part of the respondent. Hence the complainant is entitle for relief.
In view of the discussions made and decision arrived we hold Issue No.2 and 3 affirmatively and accordingly.
Point No: 4: In view of the finding on points 1, 2 and 3 proceeded to pass the following
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part .The Respondent No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs; 2000/- to the complainant towards the compensation along with Rs;1000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days . Failing to comply the same , the said amount shall carry the interest at 12% p.a. thereon till realization.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 9th day of JUNE 2016)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
