IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2009. Present: Sri.K. Vijayakumaran, President. Adv. Ravi Susha, Member. R. Vijayakumar, Member. C.C.NO.364/05 1. DR.MANOJ JOHNSON, 2. DR. SIMI RABOCK JOSEPH, MANJUSHA BHAVAN, KOTTARAKKARA. .. COMPLAINANT V/S THE MANAGER, D.T.D.C. COURIER CARGO, OPP.BHAVANA TEXTILES, KOTTARAKKARA. .. OPPOSITE PARTY O R D E R R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The complaint is filed for getting compensation. The avernments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows. The complainants having usual practice of presenting dress on the occasion of Onam Festival sent two sets of ‘onappudava’ to the father, mother and uncle of II complainant on 13-9-05 through DTDC Courier and Cargo LTD, Kottarakkara in the hope that it will reach them on or before Onam as assured by the opp.party. The old aged persons who were in the expectation that onappudava will reach before onam were disappointed. The grave negligence and deficiency in service of opp.party caused mental agony to the complainants. The opp.party is liable to compensate. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contenting interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The avernments in the complaint regarding ‘onappudava’ story is imaginary and unsupported. It is true that the complainant sent a courier article on 13-9-05. On several occasion the representatives of the complainant visited the addressee’s residence for delivery but it was found locked. This delay is not due to any willful negligence from the part of opp.party. The allegations are false and only to harass the opp.party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 examined. Exhibits P1 marked. Eventhough sufficient opportunities were given, the opp.party failed to adduce oral or documentary evidence. The points that would arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. 2. Compensation and cost. In the absence of any evidence to substantiate opp.parties version we are constrained to relay upon the evidence adduced by the complainant. On perusal of the documents we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. No evidence adduced by the opp.parties to prove that the delay was happened because of the door of addressee was locked and not due to negligence of opp.parties. We are of the opinion that the opp.party is liable to compensate for the mental agony sustained by the complainants. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.parties to pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost. The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order. Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009. K. VIJAYAKUMARAN: Sd/- ADV. RAVI SUSHA: Sd/- R. VIJAYAKUMAR: Sd/- Forwarded/by Order, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT INDEX List of witnesses for the complainant PW1- Dr. Manoj Johnson List of documents for the complainant Ext.P1-Courier consignment receipt | 
