CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.13/2011
Friday the 30th day of December, 2011
Petitioner : Vincent. K. Antony
Kunnel House,
S.H. Mount PO,
Kumaranalloor, Kottayam.
(Adv.Sindhu Mathew)
Vs.
Opposite party : The Manager,
Speed and Safe Courier Company,
Near Kottayam Railway Station,
Kottayam.
(Adv. Sankar & Kumar)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner, filed on 21/01/11, is as follows:-
A consignment was send to the petitioner by his cousin named Jayan Jacob on 22/12/10 from Pathanamthitta through the opposite party courier company. Opposite party contacted the petitioner on 23/12/10 and directed to collect the article from office of opposite party which is situated near to Kottayam Railway station. According to the petitioner at that time he was undergoing treatment at home due to a fracture sustained to his right hand. So, he requested opposite party to deliver the article at his residence. Opposite party refused to do so petitioner had to reach office of opposite party, inspite of his physical disability. According to the petitioner by undertaking delivery of an article, the opposite party had undertaken to deliver the article at his residence. Otherwise the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. On 23/12/10 petitioner issued a letter to the opposite party calling him to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- as compensation inspite of receipt of notice. Opposite party had not cared to reck grievance of petitioner. Hence the petitioner filed this petition.
Opposite party entered appearance, filed version contenting that the petitioner is not a consumer, because he has not booked any consignment with opposite party. He is a person who plays as an axe in the hand of competitors of the opposite party to malign the reputation of opposite party. Further more opposite party is only an employee of M/s Speed&Safe Courier services so petition against employee without employer as a party is not maintainable. Without giving the details, such as, the date of booking and the consignment note opposite party is not able to trace out the alleged consignment. On verifying the records in the Pathanamthitta office of opposite party it seems that nobody by name Jayan Jacob has booked any consignment infavour of complainant on 22/12/10. On 22/12/10 M/s. Meta life has booked a consignment infavour of petitioner and the same was delivered to the petitioner on 23/12/10 itself, under acknowledgement. Petitioner had caused a false complaint against the staff of the opposite party to Superintendent of Police and has caused to publish false news in Managalam Daily with an intention to malign the reputation of the opposite party. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. Petition itself is frivolous, vexatious and filed in order to malign reputation of the opposite party so they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is deficiency in service?
iii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of deposition of petitioner as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and deposition of opposite party was DW1 and deposition of DW2 along with Ext.B1 and B2 document, on the side of the opposite party.
Point No.1
Opposite party has specific contention that since, petitioner had not booked any consignment with the opposite party, petitioner is not a consumer. Further more, opposite party is only an employee of “Speed & Safe Courier service” and no complaint is maintainable as against the employee of the service provider. Admittedly the consignment has to be delivered to the petitioner. As per Section 2 (d) ‘consumer’ means any person who hires or avail any service for a consideration and also includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the service. So in the present case the petitioner can be included as a beneficiary of the service availed.
The 2nd argument paused by the learned counsel for the opposite party is that since the courier service is not made a party to proceedings petition is not maintainable. In our view even without making M/s. Speed & Safe Courier a party to the proceedings the petition is maintainable because the service is provided by opposite party to petitioner as the Manager of the courier company. Further more he has no case that presently he is not an employee of the company. So, point no.1 is find accordingly.
Point No.2
The crux of the case of the petitioner is that the consignment which was booked in the office of opposite party infavour of petitioner was not delivered to petitioner as agreed. Learned counsel for opposite party argued that since as per the case of the petitioner one person named Jayan Jacob booked the consignment infavour of the petitioner on 22/12/10. On verifying records in the Pathanamthitta office of opposite party no such person named Jayan Jacob booked any consignment on 22/12/10. Opposite party is examined as DW1. DW1 during cross examination (page No.1) deposed that at the time of accepting the consignment on 22/12/10 opposite party assured that they deliver the consignment in the house of petitioner. The lawyer’s notice issued by the petitioner to the opposite party is produced and the same is marked as Ext.A5. In Ext.A5 petitioner specifically contented that opposite party had not deliver the article in his house address. Reply lawyer’s notice issued by the opposite party is produced and the same is marked as Ext.A2. In Ext.A2 opposite party has no case that opposite party delivered the consignment at the house of petitioner. In Ext.A2 reply opposite party admitted that the consignment was booked from Meta life and was duly delivered to the petitioner on 23/12/10. Even though opposite party has a specific case that, DW2, one Binoy K.S delivered the articles to the petitioner in his house. Nowhere in Ext.A2 opposite party placed such a case. In the version also opposite party has no specific case that they deliver the consignment in the house of the petitioner. At the evidence stage opposite party filed an affidavit of one witness and he was examined as DW2. In our view the case of the opposite party at the evidence stage that they delivered the consignment at the house of the petitioner is only a cooked up story made for the purpose of contesting the case.
“Deficiency” is defined in Consumer Protection Act Section 2 (d)(g) as any fault, imperfection, shortcomings or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintain, undertaken to be performed, by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise inrelation to any service. Opposite party as DW1 in the box admitted that at the time of taking the consignment he promised to deliver it at the house of the petitioner. Here from the evidence adduced we are of the view that opposite party has not delivered the consignment to house of the petitioner as undertaken. In our view act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, so point no.2 is found accordingly.
Point No.3
In view of the findings in point no. 1 & 2 petition is allowed.
In the result, opposite party is ordered to pay petitioner an amount of Rs.1000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service committed. Opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 750/- as cost of the proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no separate compensation is ordered.
Order shall be complied with within one month of the receipt of a copy of the order. If the order is not complied, as directed, petitioner is entitled for 9% interest for the award amount from date of filing of the petition till realisation.
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2011.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Visiting card of one Jayan Jacob
Ext.A2-Copy of reply noted dtd 26-1-11
Ext.A3-Postal receipt
Ext.A4-Postal AD card
Ext.A5-Lawyer’s notice dtd 23/12/10
Documents of the opposite party
Ext.B1-courier consignment note
Ext.B2-Delivery voucher
Witness of the petitioner - PW1:Vincent.K.Antony
Witness of the opposite party - DW1:Thomas Benny
- DW2: Binoy K.S
