Karnataka

Kodagu

CC/09/21

Nayana Priyadarshini - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, TNT Courier Service - Opp.Party(s)

B.G.Pratham Karumbaiah

21 Apr 2010

ORDER


THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Shekar Complex, Mahadevapet, Madikeri-571201(Karnataka)
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/21

Nayana Priyadarshini
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Manager, TNT Courier Service
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. A.S.Hemalatha 2. K.S.Prasad 3. M.R.Devappa

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

order dated 31/03/2009 O R D E R M.R. DEVAPPA, PRESIDENT Briefly stated the case of the complainant is as follows; 1. That the complainant is a student and studying German language staying at Ammathi. 2. That the complainant’s friend one Mrs. Monika from Germany had sent a parcel ( make up kit) to the complainant through the Courier service of TNT Couriers wide parcel No.978207356 on 4-9-2008 to be delivered to the complainant at Ammathi, but the courier sent by the complainant’s friend has not reached the complainant till the date of the complaint. 3. That it has come to the knowledge of the complainant that the parcel sent by her friend had reached the TNT Courier office at Bangalore on 8-9-2008 in good condition when the complainant searched for the same through Internet and it is also learnt by the complainant that the said parcel is delivered to a 3rd party by name Kalpana by the opposite party and when again the complainant checked the same in the Internet, to her surprise it is shown as (shipment presumed to be lost). 4. That the complainant has e-mailed the opposite party office on 13-11-2008 enquiring the said parcel but the opposite party has not replied the same. That the complainant’s friend M/s Monika who is also working in the same Courier company at Germany has also mailed from Germany to one Sanjeeva who is working in the opposite party office to trace the said parcel, but the said Sanjeev also has not given any reply to Mrs. Monika. 5. That the complainant has caused the legal notice to the opposite party on 1-1-2009 by registered post and the same was served on the opposite party on 3-1-2009 and the AD card of the same is filed along with the complaint. But the opposite party though had received the notice but has not replied, instead the opposite party has contacted the complainant and has asked her to settle the said matter amicably. But the complainant waited patiently thinking that the opposite party would settle the matter amicably but the opposite party has not come forward to do so. 6. That on 17-1-2009 one of the official of the opposite party by name Kalpana who is a customer service official has sent a letter to the complainant requesting the complainant not to take any legal action, but to settle the matter amicably. But she also did not come forward for any settlement till the date of the complaint. Hence, the following relief is sought. a) To pass an order against the opposite party for the inconvenience caused by the opposite party without delivering the said parcel to the complainant and for misplacing the same, the opposite party may be asked to pay the compensation. b) To pay the cost of the parcel i.e., makeup kit worth Rs.25,000/-. c) Damage of Rs.25,000/-. d) Cost of this proceedings. 7. On admitting the complaint notice was sent to the opposite party but the opposite party though had received the notice remained absent on the date when he was supposed to appear. Hence, the opposite party was placed exparte. The complainant was directed to file affidavit evidence of the complainant. 8. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of examination in chief re-iterating what is already stated in the complaint and also has prayed for the relief mentioned in the complaint. The opposite party though has received the notice from the Forum has remained absent without sufficient cause. 9. Having regard to the averments made in the complaint and the opposite party being absent, the following issues arise for determination. 1. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service on his part in not delivering the parcel ? 2. To what order? R E A S O N S 10. It is revealed from the records that the opposite party has made an attempt by way of approaching the complaint to settle the matter amicably, but has failed to approach complainant again in this regard. Thus the opposite party has not challenged or rebutted the affidavit evidence of the complaint and has not placed any materials to disbelieve the say of the complainant. Contrarily the materials placed by the complainant establish that the opposite party has failed to deliver the parcel containing ‘makeup kit’ to the complainant. It appears that the opposite party has received the parcel from Germany which the complainant could trace from the Internet. But the same is not delivered to the complainant. The opposite party is duty bound to deliver the parcel to the complainant as shown in the parcel but without delivering the same to the complainant has committed deficiency of service. It is stated, by the complainant that the parcel is delivered to 3rd person which the opposite party is not supposed to do so. Since it is disclosed that the parcel was delivered to one Kalpana long back the makeup kit might be used by her and the same used makeup kit cannot be asked to be collected from that person and be delivered to the complainant. Therefore, it is just and proper to direct the opposite party to pay the value of the makeup kit to the complainant. 11. It is mentioned in the complaint and also in the affidavit that the value of the makeup kit is Rs.25,000/- which is not denied or rebutted by the opposite party. For having caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant she is to be suitably compensated. 12. For the foregoing reasons we answer point no.1 positively holding that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service on his part and proceed to pass the following order. O R D E R The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.25,000/- being the value of the makeup kit which was sent through the parcel to the complainant and further opposite party is directed to pay the compensation of Rs.500/- to the complainant as she is being put to inconvenience and mental agony and Rs.500/- towards the cost of this proceedings to the complainant. The above order shall be complied by the opposite party within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order. Communicate the order to the parties. Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the open Forum on this 31st day of March 2009. (M.R. DEVAPPA), (K.S. PRASAD), (A.S. HEMALATHA), PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER




......................A.S.Hemalatha
......................K.S.Prasad
......................M.R.Devappa