KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No. 913/2005

JUDGMENT DATED:  31-12-2009

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU            :  PRESIDENT

APPELLANT

P.K. Chithrabhanu,

Advocate, Old Mughal Palace Building,

Kottayam, Residing at Navajeevan,

Annankunnu, Nagampadom P.O., Kottayam.

            (Rep. by Adv. Sri. R.S. Kalkura and others)

                                    Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.      The Manager,

          Speed and Safe Courier Service, T.D. Road (North End), Kochi.

2.          Thomas Benny,

          Agent, Speed and Safe Courier Service, Parel Lodge,

          Railway Station Road, Kottayam.

3.          Speed and Safe Courier Service,

Represented by its General Manager,

T.D. Road (North End), Kochi.

(Rep. by Adv. Sri. S. Reghu Kumar)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

                        The appellant is the complainant in OP No. 412/02 in the file of CDRF, Kottayam.  The complaint filed by the appellant stands dismissed.

          2.          The case of the complainant is that he entrusted an envelop containing valuable documents for the purpose of filing an OP before the High Court of Kerala against the revenue recovery proceedings initiated by the authorities against him.  The packet was addressed to Mr. C.B. Sudheesh, the brother-in-law of the petitioner.  The petitioner had also paid Rs. 10/- as courier charges.  The petitioner also informed the addressee about the sending of the envelope.  But the opposite parties failed to give any communication as to the packet to the addressee as a result of which the original petition could not be filed before the High Court.  The complainant and the addressee enquired several times regarding the fate of the envelope.  The complainant had to make payment to stop the revenue recovery proceedings.  The envelope was returned on 13-05-2002 without intimating the reason for non-delivery.  On enquiry it was found that the Kottayam office of the opposite parties with whom the envelope was entrusted failed to despatch the parcel to the Cherthala office.  Lawyer notice was issued.  He has claimed a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards monetary loss; Rs. 20,250/- for deficiency in service and also Rs. 50,000/- as compensation.

          3.          The opposite parties had filed separate versions contending that the complainant had told at the time of the entrustment of the envelop that the addressee would come and receive the envelop from the Cherthala Office of the opposite party.  The envelope was returned to the office from where it was sent, as the addressee did not turn up.  The envelope was received back on 09-05-2002 at the Cherthala Office and although the complainant was informed he collected back the same only on 13-05-2002.

4.          Evidence adduced consisted of the proof affidavits of the respective sides and Exts. A1 to A5 and B1 to B4.

5.          The Forum has relied on the version of the opposite parties that they kept the envelop in their office as instructed by the complainant and as the addressee did not come to the office and take delivery the same was sent back to the sender.

          6.          We find that there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the complainant that inspite of repeated enquires by the complainant and the addressee the Cherthala office could not locate the envelope.  The addressee was not also intimated from the Cherthala office although the phone number was prominently mentioned in the cover of the envelope itself.  The envelope was returned to the complainant on 13-05-2002.  The envelope was entrusted with the opposite party for delivery on 07-05-2002.  According to the complainant, the envelope contained important documents for filing an OP before the High Court of Kerala.  The complainant is an Advocate.  It has to be noted that the Forum has mentioned that no affidavit of the addressee has been filed.  We find that the complainant has filed proof affidavit.  The complainant was not cross examined.  Ext.B1 produced mentioning the same as the dispatch register is just a note book.  The same is not a document that can be relied on.  Evidently, it is not the function of the courier just to keep the article in its office.  On a verification of Ext.A2 envelope, we find that the phone number of the addressee was subsequently incorporated cannot be believed.  It is the practice to mention or obtain the telephone number for facilitating the location of the addressee when envelopes are received for transmission.  Ext.A2 envelope also did not contain the consignment number also.  We find that it is established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.  In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside.  The respondents/opposite parties are ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and also costs of Rs. 2,000/-.  The amounts are to be paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest on the amount of compensation at 12% from the date of complaint ie,  30-09-2002.

          In the result, the appeal is allowed as above.

          The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently along with this order.

                                         JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

Sr.