Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

68/2014

Mrs.Hemalatha Charodi Proprietor,a - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager - Opp.Party(s)

T.R.Kumaravel

01 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  01.04.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  01.12.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 01^st DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.68/2014

 

 

Mrs.Hemalatha Charodia,

Proprietor,

M/s.Sruti’s,

New No.365, Old No.212, Sydenhams Road,

1^st Floor, Apparao Garden,

Choolai, Chennai – 600 112.

 

 

                                                                                         ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

The Manager/Incharge,

M/s.K.P.N.Speed Parcel Service Pvt.Ltd.,

New No.46, Old No.334B, Wall Tax Road,

Chennai – 600 079.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 01.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : T.R.Kumaravel, T.R.Anand

Counsel for   opposite party                    : Ms. R.Dhanalakshmi

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party is a Speed Parcel Service Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant had booked a parcel “1-CB- CARTON BOX” with the Invoice No.VE-01672 dated 08.03.2013 containing Pharmaceutical products for the value of Rs.42,712/- to be delivered at M/s. Doctors Pharma, No. 53, Salem Main Road, Nellai Complex, Krishnagiri – 1. The Opposite Party collected freight charges of Rs.130/- for transporting the said parcel. On 08.03.2013 till the date of filing the Complaint, the parcel was neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to the Complainant. This is a clear case of Deficiency in Service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence the Complainant sent legal notice dated 12.02.2014 to the Opposite Party and it was acknowledged on 18.02.2014, but there was no reply from the Opposite Party. Hence the Complainant filed the Complaint to refund the freight charges and the cost of the product sent through parcel and compensation for Deficiency in Service and mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant sent a parcel of One Carton Box to Salem on 08.03.2013 and also paid a sum of Rs.130/- towards the freight charges. The Opposite Party denies the value of goods sent through him is Rs.42,712/- . The Opposite Party does not know the items sent in the Carton Box. The Complainant running business for the commercial purpose and therefore he cannot be considered as a Consumer. The Complaint filed very belatedly with malafide intention without any basis. Hence this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer?

          2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1

          The Opposite Party contended that the Complainant is running a business and therefore he cannot be considered as a Consumer. The Complainant business is  a proprietor concern. Normally the proprietary concern carried on by a single person for the benefit of himself and his family members. Therefore the Complainant runs the business for himself and his family members’ for their livelihood only. Further, the Complainant availed the services of the Opposite Party for sending goods by way of parcel. Therefore, in such circumstances the Complainant is considered as a Consumer.

5. POINT NO:2  

          The Complainant booked a Carton Box through the Opposite Party parcel service and for the same he had paid a sum of Rs.130/- towards freight charges under Ex.A2. According to the Complainant he sent pharmaceutical product in the said parcel and the products purchased under Ex.A1 Invoice for the value of Rs.42,712/-. However the Opposite Party would contend that he was not aware of the products sent in the said parcel.

6. The said parcel was sent on 08.03.2013 as per Ex.A2 receipt issued by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party admits that the Complainant booked Carton Box and to be delivered at Salem. However the fact remains that the Opposite Party had not delivered the Carton Box to the Salem addressee as booked by the Complainant. Therefore, non delivery of parcel booked by the Complainant is a fault on the part of the Opposite Party.

7. The Opposite Party would contend that the Ex.A3 notice issued after 11 months of the parcel booked by the Complainant belatedly will no way affect the case of the Complainant. Since the Opposite Party had not delivered the parcel after receiving freight charges from the Complainant, it is a clear case of deficiency on his part.  Therefore, we hold that the Opposite Party by not delivering the parcel at Salem address as per Ex.A2 establishes that the Opposite Party has committed Deficiency in Service.                   

8. POINT NO :3

          According to the Complainant the value of the goods sent in the Carton Box is Rs.42,712/-  as per Ex.A1. Though the Opposite Party would say that he was not aware of the goods sent in the parcel, the Complainant specifically stated  in  Ex.A3 notice that he sent the pharmaceutical products for the value of Rs.42,712/- in the consignment. The Opposite Party did not reply for the said notice though he acknowledged under Ex.A4 and therefore in such circumstances we hold that the value of goods sent in the parcel is at Rs.42,712/-. Having the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service, the Opposite Party is liable to refund the  goods value of Rs.42,712/-. Due to loss of goods the Complainant suffered with mental agony is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation, besides a sum of 5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to refund a sum of Rs.42,712/- (Rupees forty two thousand   seven hundred and twelve  only ) towards the value of the goods to the Complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

        The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 01^st   day of December 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 08.03.2013                   Invoice No.VE-01672

Ex.A2 dated 08.03.2013                   L.R.No.CHE 294046951, K.P.N. Speed Parcel

                                                    Service Pvt.Ltd.,

 

Ex.A3 dated 12.02.2014                   Legal Notice

 

Ex.A4 dated 18.02.2014                   Acknowledgement Card

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTY :

                                      …..NIL……

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT