ORDER By Jayasree Kallat, Member: The petition was filed on 20-09.06. The complaint is filed by Jithin G.K. on behalf of Dr. Dhanya Shinith alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant had entrusted an envelope on 11-2-2006 in the office of the first opposite party to be delivered to Dr. Dhanya. At the time of entrustment complainant had informed the first opposite party that the envelope contained a non refundable and non-transferable USA MRV VISA FEE DEPOSIT SLIP WORTH RS.4876/-. If the slip is lost, the complainant has to remit the same amount again to get another slip. The slip was to be submitted along with the application for US VISA. Opposite party had promised to deliver the consignment promptly without any delay or default. The first opposite party failed to deliver the envelope to Dr. Dhanya who is the beneficiary herein. Dr. Dhanya had enquired requesting early delivery of the envelope. The slip was lost from the opposite party. Opposite party had promised to refund the losses suffered by Dr. Dhanya. But opposite party has not refunded the amount. Dr. Dhanya had to deposit Rs.4876/- twice to get the slip due to the deficiency and carelessness of the first opposite party. Hence this complaint seeking return of the amount remitted for the slip including compensation. Version was filed by opposite parties-1 and 2 jointly. The opposite parties denied the averments and allegations in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. The first opposite party denies that the complainant had entrusted an envelope to the first opposite party. The first opposite party usually does not accept the envelope containing valuable things, securities, bills, documents, passport, money etc. from the customers. The complainant if at all had sent any valuable documents or slip as referred in the complainant it was without the knowledge of the first opposite party. The complainant never disclosed to the first opposite party that the envelope contained a valuable slip. The terms and conditions and liability of the company in case of loss of consignment in transit is clearly mentioned on the receipt issuing for the consignment. D.T.D.C. Courier, Bangalore is the Head office which also should be impleaded as opposite party. So the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The second opposite party is an unnecessary party as the complaint is no way connected with the second opposite party. Second opposite party not connected with the alleged consignment. Opposite parties-1 and 2 prays to dismiss the complaint. The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on complainant’s side. Opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 was marked on O.P’s side. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had entrusted an envelope with the first opposite party to deliver to Dr. Dhanya at Koyilandy. The envelope contained a non- refundable and non-transferrable USA MRV VISA FEE DEPOSIT SLIP worth Rs.4876/-. According to the complainant the first opposite party had promised to deliver the consignment without delay. But first opposite party did not deliver the envelope. The petition was filed on behalf of Dr. Dhanya by Jithin. G.K. Complainant had produced Ext.A2 and also deposed as PW1 that the value was written on Ext.A2. Opposite party-1 has also given evidence as RW1 and has stated that he never writes the value on the receipt unless it has been insured. According to the opposite parties the complainant had written the amount later on. Some manipulations were committed on it. Opposite party had filed a petition I.A. 92/2010 to reopen the matter and I.A. No.93/2010 to produce the original document of ext.A2. The I.As were allowed the complainant was directed to produce the Ext.A2 document. The complainant was absent consecutively for the next three postings. Complainant has not produced the original of Ext.A2. The complainant also has not insured the consignment. At that instant opposite party has argued that if the consignment is not insured the liability of O.P. on loss or damage is only Rs.100/-. It is evident from Ext.B1 document. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has clearly established this fact in M/s. Indrapuri Express Courtier Ltd. Vs M/s. Allied Business Corporation 2007 (3) CPR 34 (N.C.). The Hon’ble Supreme Court has upheld the findings of National Commission by limiting the liability undertaken in the contract entered by the parties. In this case also as long as the original receipt was not produced by the complainant opposite party has no liability to pay even Rs.100/-. PW1 has given false and misleading evidence. The beneficiary Dr. Dhanya has not appeared before the Forum or given any evidence. On a perusal of ext.A2 document the Forum has been convinced that the complainant has made manipulations on Ext.A2. Even though complainant was given a chance to produce the original of Ext.A2 to prove the authenticity of Ext.A2 complainant has failed to do so. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled for the relief sought in the petition. In the result the petition is liable to be dismissed. Pronounced in the open court this the 30th day of September 2010. Date of filing: 20.09.2006. SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant: A1. Photocopies of the receipts of USA MRV VISA FEE DEPOSIT SLIP dtd.10.02.06. A2.True copy of the receipt issued by the D.T.D.C. Courier & Cargo Ltd dtd.11.02.06. A3.Remainaing original receipt of USA MRV VISA FEE DEPOSIT SLIP taken by the consignee the second time. A4.True copy of the email sent by Dr.Dhanya to the US VISA issuing authority along with the reply. A5.True copy of the reply sent by the opposite party dtd.05.04.06 A6. True copy of the requesting letter dtd. 16.04.2006. A7.True copy of the second reply letter dtd. 12.05.06. A8.Photocopy of short claim form issued by the Ist opposite party which was resubmitted to the Ist OP. A9.True copy of the lawyer notice issued to Ist OP demanding the compensation amount dtd.18.07.06. A10.Undelivered lawyer notice inside the registered postal cover to Ist OP. A11.Undelivered notice to 2nd OP dt.29.08.06 Documents exhibited for the opposite party: B1.DTDC Courier & Cargo receipt dtd. 24.09.2009 Witness examined for the complainant: PW1.Jithin.T.K.(Complainant) Witness examined for the opposite party: RW1.Krishnakumar, Sakthinilayam, Mahadur Gardens , Thottikkath , Cochin-11 Sd/-President //True copy// (Forwarded/By Order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
| | [HONOURABLE MRS. Jayasree Kallat, MA.,] Member[HONOURABLE MR. G Yadunadhan, BA.,LLB.,] PRESIDENT[HONOURABLE MR. L Jyothikumar, LLB.,] Member | | 
