DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16^th  day of January  2015

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

               : Smt.Suma.K.P.  Member                              Date of filing: 14/02/2014        

                                                       (C.C.No.22/2014)        

Shaiju K Chacko,

S/o.C.V.Sosama,

Devi Nagar,

Noorani, Palakkad                                        -        Complainant

(Adv.Redson Skaria) 

Vs

1.The Manager,

   Trackon Courier Pvt.Ltd.,

   No.11/365, MAK Building, Kannara Street,

   Palakkad

2.The Manager,

   Trackon Courier Pvt.Ltd.

   APRA 11 LFC Road,

   Pottakuzhi, North Kaloor,

   Ernakulam                                                -        Opposite parties

(By Adv.Roy Varghese) 

O R D E R

By Smt.Shiny.P.R.  President

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased Premium Godrej locks  for Rs.31,265/- from Kakkassery Agencies, Palakkad vide invoice No.518. Since the purchased locks were found faulty, on the request of the complainant, the worker of Kakkassery Agencies sent it back to the Godrej Company through opposite parties on 27/2/2012. But it did not reach the destination. The complainant submitted that on knowing the facts he  enquired about the same with 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party without giving any care ignored the request made by the complainant to trace out the lost goods sent by him. On 7/12/2012 complainant sent a lawyer notice to opposite parties. 1^st opposite party accepted the notice. No reply was sent by the 1^st opposite party. Notice sent to 2^nd opposite party was returned. The act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. By the act of the opposite parties complainant had sustained mental agony and financial loss.  Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for a direction to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards financial loss and mental agony suffered, Rs.31,265/- towards the cost of locks along with 18% interest and cost of proceedings.

Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite parties. Opposite parties  entered appearance and filed version. The following contentions are raised by opposite parties. First contention is that  there is no privity of contract between the parties. Second is that the  notice was issued only after 9 months.  As per section 10 of  Carriage Act notice should be sent within 180 days. By delayed notice they had lost their right  to trace out the consignment.  Third,  the consignment  was not insured and value of the consignment  was not declared. Fourth contention is that the consignment was not properly  packed and in case of loss of courier parcel their  liability  is limited upto Rs.100/-. Hence the complaint  is liable to be dismissed. Later complainant filed replication stating that  all contentions raised by the opposite parties in their version are false.

Both parties filed their respective chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to A5 marked on the side of complainant and Ext.B1 marked from the side of opposite parties. Witness of complainant is examined as PW1.

Issues are to be considered

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. If so, what is the relief ?

Heard both parties.

Issues 1 & 2

We have perused the documents on record. Ext.A1 shows that Kakkassery Agencies booked a consignment  of 24kg. with opposite parties.  As per Ext.A5 complainant  has purchased locks of Rs.31,265/- from Kakkassery Agencies. Ext.A1 is not disputed by opposite parties. Opposite parties raised a contention that there is no privity of contract between the parties. At the time of cross examination of  PW1, he deposed that he had booked a consignment of locks of 24 kg.for Mr.Shaiju.K. Chacko through opposite party’s courier service, and that locks were purchased from Kakkassery Agencies. The cost of these locks was Rs.31,265/-. He also deposed that the packet was properly packed, the value of consignment was not disclosed and was not insured. According to complainant he has incurred financial loss and suffered mental agony due to the act of opposite parties. The bill of newly purchased lock is not produced in order to prove his financial loss. He has sent lawyer notice on 6/12/12 i.e. after 9 months of booking the consignment. He submitted that he knew the non delivery of the consignment  only in the month of October, 2012.  However opposite parties are not adduced any evidence to show that the consignment  was delivered at the destination. Non delivery of the consignment amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Taking consignment after receiving fee, opposite parties cannot simply wash away their hands by merely saying that they have a limited liability  of Rs.100/- in case of consignment  lost in transit. Neither consignor nor opposite party has signed  the Ext.A1 document.  So the clause in Ext.A1 is not binding upon consignor.  Some duties  are cast  upon opposite parties to deliver the consignment  at its destination within a reasonable time. Hence the complainant is entitled to get compensation  from opposite parties.

In  view of above  discussions, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service  on  the part of opposite parties. Hence the  complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.31,265/- (Rupees Thirty one thousand two hundred and sixty five only) towards cost of locks.  Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order, till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 16^th day of January 2015.  

                          Sd/-                                               

                     Shiny.P.R.

                      President   

                          Sd/-

                     Suma.K.P.

                      Member

Appendix

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Vinodkumar.C

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Receipt dated 27/2/2012 issued by opposite party

Ext.A2 series – Postal receipts, acknowledgement card returned unclaimed

                      cover sent to the opposite party   

Ext.A3  series–  Copy of lawyer notice, acknowledgement, postal receipt sent to

                       the 1^st opposite party

Ext.A4 –  Copy of lawyer notice, acknowledgement, postal receipt sent to the

               2^nd opposite party  

Ext.A5 –  Bill dated 10/12/2011 issued by Kakkassery Agency, Palakkad for

              Rs.31,265/-

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 – Authorization letter issued by opposite party.

Cost (Allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost