BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 217/2002 Filed on 27.05.2002

Dated : 30.06.2009

Complainant:

P. Ramachandran Nair, residing at Lalithavan, Pazhaya Road, Pongummoodu, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite parties:

1. The Manager, Professional Couriers, K.K. Buildings, Mukkom Road, Kunnamangalam, Kozhikode.

    

   (By adv. T.R. Asokan)

    

2. The Manager, Operation Wing, Professional Couriers, Thycaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-14.

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 30.05.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.05.2009, the Forum on 30.06.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: A Demand Draft bearing No. 525686 dated 23.03.2002 of SBT, Kunnamangalam Branch for Rs. 2300/- drawn in favour of the applicant and purchased by his daughter-in-law Smt. S.R.Vimala Devi, payable at SBT, Sreekariyam Branch was handed over to the 1^st opposite party at Kozhikode on 23.03.2002 vide receipt No. 1515968 for delivery in the applicant's name at Thiruvananthapuram. The envelop containing the Demand Draft mentioned above sent through the opposite parties was delivered to the applicant at 1 p.m on 30.03.2002. The applicant has put his signature and date with the time of receipt of the envelop on the opposite party's delivery note. The inordinate delay in delivering the envelop in which the Demand Draft was enclosed has caused mental agony and inconvenience to the applicant since he had to make alternate arrangements for funds to defray certain payments on due dates. He has suffered mental agony, strain and inconvenience due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The service of the opposite party was hired for consideration on the distinct understanding that the said envelop containing the Demand Draft would be delivered at Thiruvananthapuram on the very next day, i.e, on 24.03.2002. the complainant also submitted that the 2^nd opposite party bears grudge against the applicant since he has filed a complaint against him before this Forum on 18.01.2002 for a similar incident of delayed delivery of an article on his part. The applicant in his letter dated 03.04.2002 sent to the 1^st opposite party has clearly brought to his notice the defective service on his part and has demanded an amount of Rs. 500/- as damages for delay in delivery of the article. The 1^st opposite party has sent a reply evading the claim stating unacceptable matters and hence this complaint.

The 1^st opposite party, Professional couriers submitted their version before this Forum contending the case of the complainant. In the version 1^st opposite party stated that they have forwarded the article on 23.03.2002 vide manifest No. 34867 Sl. No. 30 and there is no delay from their part and as such there is no deficiency of service. They also stated that they have not received any complaint from the complainant.

2^nd opposite party in this case, the Manager, Operation Wing, Professional Couriers, Thycaud accepted notice from this Forum, but did not appear before this Forum to contest the case.

In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has produced 5 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P5. The 2^nd opposite party also filed proof affidavit. Nobody has been cross examined.

The complainant's daughter-in-law handed over the envelop containing the Demand Draft to the 1^st opposite party on 23.03.2002. the 2^nd opposite party delivered the same on 30.03.2002 to the complainant. As per the complainant the inordinate delay in delivering the envelop in which the Demand Draft was enclosed has caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. To prove his contentions, the complainant has produced 5 documents. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the document in which the complainant had put his signature and time of receipt of the envelop on the 2^nd opposite party's delivery note. From this document it can be seen that the date of delivery is 30/3 and time is 13.10 hrs. Ext. P2 is the copy of notice issued by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party on 03.04.2002 demanding damages. Ext. P3 is the envelop in which the Demand Draft was sent. Ext. P4 is the acknowledgement card signed by the 2^nd opposite party. Ext. P5 is the reply letter of 2^nd opposite party to the complainant. In that letter the 2^nd opposite party advised the complainant to approach the 1^st opposite party if there is any complaint regarding the late delivery, loss or damage as it should be settled with the origin station as per the terms and conditions.

In this case the 1^st opposite party admitted the transaction and they stated that from their side there was no delay to despatch the item. But they have no evidence to prove that they have sent the item on 23.03.2002. The complainant got the D.D only on 30.03.2002. Ext. P1 is the evidence for that. The complainant's daughter-in-law sent the Demand Draft through the opposite party with the bonafide belief that the complainant will get the Demand Draft on the next day itself. There is 7 days delay in getting the Demand Draft in complainant's hand. Definitely it is due to the deficient service of the opposite parties. The purpose of sending urgent matters through courier service is for immediate delivery. Otherwise the customers can sent it by post. The inordinate delay in delivering the envelop definitely caused mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for their deficient service. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs. 300/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 12% annual interest also shall pay to the above said amount till the date of realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of June 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 217/2002

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Delivery Note No. 1515968 issued by 1^st opposite party.

P2 - Copy of letter dated 03.04.2002 issued by the complainant

to 2^nd opposite party.

P3 - The envelop in which DD was sent.

P4 - Acknowledgement card signed by the 2^nd opposite party.

P5 - Reply letter dated 09.04.2002 issued by 2^nd opposite party

to the complainant.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT