DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 21st day of January 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
Date of filing: 16.03.2021.
CC/53/2021
E.K.Surendran
Rugmini Nivas - Complainant
20/266
Edayar Street
Mankav
Palakkad- 678 001
(By Adv:Somasundaran Pillai)
Vs
The Manager
Professional couriers
Service Centre - Opposite Party
Palm Plaza
Coimbatore Road
Kalmandapam
Palakkad
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Smt Vidya A., Member
1.Brief Facts of the Complaint
1. The complainant on behalf of his son sent an article to a party in Navi Mumbai through the opposite party on 01/03/2021 with receipt No PGT 3360328. But the opposite party returned the article after 9 days with a remark ‘could not locate.’ They just retuned it without contacting the complainant or the party in that address with the remark. The article was to be delivered urgently and because of the non delivery, his son was unable to give a proper reply to his superiors in Mumbai and was under depression for the above period.
Then the complainant approached another courier ‘Track on’ and they delivered the same within 48 hrs. The above act of the opposite party is deficiency in service and the complaint is filed for getting a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the financial loss, time loss, mental agony, deficiency in service and legal expenditure.
2. Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite party. Even after receiving the notice, the opposite party did not appear before the Commission and so they were set exparte.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exhibit A1 to A5 were marked. Heard the complainant.
4. Main Points to be considered
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service?
2.If so, what is the relief as to cost and compensation?
Points 1 & 2
5. We have perused the proof affidavit and documents produced by the complainant.
In the proof affidavit, the complainant had clearly stated what had happened. According to him, his son who is an Engineer working in ‘Crompton Greaves’ Mumbai was “working from home” due to the pandemic situation. His company provided him a computer sensor with a condition to return it after his project work. Accordingly after use, the sensor was send back to the representative of the company in his address in Navi Mumbai by the complainant through the opposite party. The receipt issued by the opposite party dated 01/03/2021 with NO.PGT 3360328 is produced by the complainant and marked as Exhibit A1.
6. As per the complaint, the opposite party returned the product to the complainant on 09/03/2021 with a remark “could not locate” The copy of the return slip produced and marked as Exhibit A2 and the track record is marked as Exhibit A3.
Complainant’s contention in this regard is that it was an urgent article and the opposite party returned it to him with the endorsement ‘could not locate’ without contacting him or the party in that address.
7. The opposite party could have delivered the product, if they had contacted the person in that address. The mobile number and his address are clearly shown in Exhibit A2. This shows that they did not take sincere efforts to find out the address and deliver the article in time. After accepting the payment and after promising to deliver the article, the opposite party who is a service provider is bound to do justice to their customers. Here they failed to do it and it is a clear deficiency in service on their part.
8. Because of their deficiency in service, the complaint’s son was harassed by his superiors and suffered mental agony and it even affected his promotion as per complainant’s affidavit. So the opposite party is bound to compensate for that.
9. In support of his evidence, the complainant produced the receipt of another Courier company, which properly delivered the product in time. Even though it in no way relevant in this case, it can be considered for showing the irresponsibility and negligence on the part of the opposite party in performing their duty.
10. Since the opposite party remained exparte, the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unchallenged.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party.
To pay Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for the deficiency in service on their part, and for the mental agony and other inconveniences suffered by the complainant and Rs.3,000/- as cost of this litigation.
Order shall be complied within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 21st day of January 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President.
Sd/- Vidya.A Member
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1– Copy of the tax invoice No.PGT.3360328 issued by opposite party
dated 01/03/2021.
Ext.A2 - Copy of Returned slip from the opposite party.
Ext.A3 - Track Record of the opposite party.
Ext.A4 - Receipt No.13073296 issued by ‘Track on Couriers’ dated 09/03/2021.
Ext.A5 - Track Record of ‘Track on couriers’
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
NIL
Cost: 3,000/-
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Resolution 20(5) of the Consumer protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 falling which they will be weeded out.
