IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2011.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President).
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
C.C.No. 167/10 (Filed on 04.12.2010)
Between:
Seenamol George,
Kandnkumarakathu House,
Pazhavangadi.P.O.,
Ranni.
(ByAdv. Ike Mani) ..... Complainant
And:
The Manager,
Professional Couriers,
Kunnirickal Building,
Ittiyappara, Ranni.
(By Adv. M. Abdul Rahiman) ..... Opposite party.
O R D E R
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case is that the opposite party is engaged in the business of Courier Service. On 6.2.09, the complainant entrusted a parcel containing 3 brand new silk sarees bought from Dubai along with 3 blouse pieces and 3 skirts to be delivered in the address of her co-brother at Bangalore. The complainant also paid an amount of ` 180 as the courier charges. The said articles were sent for the petitioner’s daughter who is studying at Bangalore, as her daughter needs Keralite dressings for a competition conducted at the college. The delivery of the parcel was effected only after 6 days. At the time of delivery it is noticed that the packet is tampered and 2 sarees, 2 blouse piece and 2 skirts are missing, while the parcel was opened in the presence of the opposite party’s representative at Bangalore. So the complainant personally and through her counsel sent notice to the opposite party in this regard. But the opposite party did not responded though he received the notice. Due to the missing of the parcel, the complainant had sustained a loss of ` 9,000. The above said act of the opposite party is a deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint for the realisation of ` 9,000, the cost of the lost articles along with ` 2,000 and ` 5,00 as compensation and cost respectively.
3. Opposite party entered appearance and filed his version with the following contentions:-The opposite party admitted the transaction. The opposite party denied the allegation of the tampering of the parcel cover and missing of the articles. According to the opposite party, if such an incident was happened it would have been noted as open delivery and also get it recorded the items delivered from the branch office where it was delivered. The articles were not lost and it was delivered to the addressee without any delay. The alleged loss was not brought to the notice of the opposite party or the complainant had not given any notice as claimed by the complainant. But a suit notice was received and on receipt of the said notice, the complainant was informed that there was no report of tempering or damage through telephone. The allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is false and baseless. As per the terms and conditions of the courier service, the opposite party is liable only in case of any loss and the complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as prayed for in the complaint as there is any loss to the complainant. The courier company and the Manager of the Branch office where the article was delivered are not arrayed as party in this case. Hence this case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. This complaint is filed with malafide intention on an experimental basis for getting an illegal gain from the opposite party. With the above contentions opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the basis of the averments of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
5. The evidence of this complaint consists of the proof affidavit of the complainant and opposite party and Exts.A1 and A2.
6. On the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant 2 documents were marked as Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is the photocopy of the receipt dated 6.2.09 for ` 180 issued by the opposite party in the name of the complainant in connection with this transaction. Ext.A2 is the photocopy of a complaint-dated 12.2.09 given by the complainant to the opposite party informing about the missing of the articles. Thereafter the complainant’s evidence was closed. After the closure of complainant’s evidence, opposite party filed an application as IA.67/11 for re-opening the evidence and allowing the opposite party to cross-examine the complainant. Opposite party also filed his proof affidavit. The above said IA was allowed and the case was posted for the examination of the complainant and several adjournments were also allowed for the examination of the complainant. But the complainant has not turned up for cross-examination. So the complainant’s evidence was closed again and on the basis of the proof affidavit of the opposite party, the opposite party’s evidence was also closed and due to the absence of both parties, the matter was taken as heard.
7. In this case, the complainant has not adduced any evidence other than Ext.A1 and A2 or any other independent evidence for substantiating her allegations. Further, the complainant is not prepared to stand for cross-examination by the opposite party and abstained from contesting the case further. In the circumstances and since the available evidence is not sufficient, we could not find any deficiency of service against the opposite party and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2011.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Photocopy of the receipt dated 6.2.09 for ` 180 issued by the
