Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/16/310

Dr.Paul Raj MBBS,MS - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Franch Express Network - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jun 2022

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

                                SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

                                 SMT.PREETHA .G.NAIR: MEMBER

SRI.VIJU.V.R                 : MEMBER

CC.NO.310/2016 (Filed on : 22/06/2016)

ORDER DATED : 30/06/2022

COMPLAINANT

Dr.Paul Raj MBBS, MS

Pratheep Nursing Home,

Palliyadi, Pin – 629169

Kaniyakumari District

Tamil Nadu

 

 (By Adv.J.R.Sanudas)

                                                VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Manager / Proprietor,

Franch Express Network,

No.199, Hariyan Street,

C-Pallavaram, Chennai – 600043

 

2. The Branch Manager,

Franch Express Network,

(Near Retinam Lubricants)

Kohar Road, Chenthitta Junction,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695036

 

(By Adv.C.S.Rajmohan)

ORDER

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR  : MEMBER

    The complainant booked one article to Delhi through the courier service owned and managed by the opposite parties on 24.02.2016 on a promise that the same shall be delivered at Delhi on or before 27^th. The opposite parties failed to deliver the parcel not only in time as agreed but never served and thereby caused injury and loss to the complainant. There was a railway receipt enclosed in the said article which was booked through the opposite parties. This railway receipt was so important that the same had to be produced before the railway authorities at Delhi for the release of parcels which the complainant transported through it. As the courier article which carrying the said railway receipts could not reach in Delhi. The complainant could not release in time the goods reached Delhi by railway service.  Upon enquiry, the opposite parties expressed their helplessness in the matter and thereby failed to fulfil the promise they had given to the complainant. Later the complainant had to travel from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram to deal with railway authorities in order to procure a duplicate copy of the railway receipt and had to send the same to Delhi through another courier to sort out the matter. Due to this deficiency in service by the opposite party, the complainant had sustained heavy financial loss, mental agony and untold hardship. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant. Complainant sent a registered letter on 07.03.2016 to the second opposite party which was returned undelivered. Then, lawyer’s notice was issued to the opposite parties on 24.03.2016. Though it was delivered, the opposite parties does not sent any reply, hence this complaint.

          Opposite parties filed version stating that the complainant has filed this complaint suppressing actual facts and raising false allegation. Complainant had sent a parcel from Trivandrum to Delhi to Mr.Pratheep Samraj  on 24.02.2016 by paying Rs.70/-. As stated in the complaint, it was not complainant’s wife, who has sent the parcel. Opposite parties received a small parcel which was less than1 Kg and the parcel was undeclared, hence opposite parties are unaware of the item inside the parcel. So, charged only Rs.70. Opposite parties have no connection with Maruthi Courier Service and have not sent the parcel through them. Opposite parties sent the parcel to their own network in Delhi.  As per the complainant, he has sent few things thorough railway, to be sent to his son at Delhi. Complainant has sent the waybill of the railway parcel through opposite party’s courier. From the document produced by the complainant, itself shows, that it was a parcel with 30 kg which was received on 05.03.2016 and it was 70 kg when left from Trivandrum Central on 24.02.2016. From that it is clear that it was two different parcels. The parcel which was sent through opposite parties was received by complainant’s son before 01.03.2016. As per opposite parties record, the status was received. As per the complaint, complainant did not receive the parcel, so he extended his stay in Delhi. Opposite parties are not liable for the extended stay of complainant at Delhi. He extended his stay for his personal reasons, opposite parties are not responsible for all his expenses in Delhi. But from the document produced by the complainant proves that between 24.02.2016 and 05.03.2016, he was in Trivandrum. Opposite parties deny, all allegation that complainant made in the complaint. If at all, the complainant did not receive the parcel, it must be due to complainant’s fault, as the address given was not complete. But opposite parties status shows, received. Complainant had sent an undeclared parcel, hence if the parcel gets misplaced, as per the Carriage Act, for an undeclared parcel, liability is limited to Rs.100/-. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties. Hence opposite parties are not liable to give compensation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

             Both parties filed affidavit. Complainant examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P10 marked. Opposite party was examined as DW1. No documents marked from the side of opposite parties.

Issues

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is eligible for compensation

       It is evident from Ext.P1 that the complainant has sent a parcel to Pratheep Samraj through opposite parties on 24.02.2016. The complainant stated that the second opposite party promised that the consignment would reach Delhi on or before 27^th February. The complainant contacted the opposite party and informed him regarding the non receipt of the courier articles on 27.02.2016.But the opposite parties did not respond properly. The opposite parties stated that complainant and his son went to Delhi on 17.02.2016. At the time of cross examination of DW1 deposed that he authorised his wife to sent the parcel in his name. Anyhow there was no dispute regarding the parcel which was sent through opposite party. The opposite party has contended that the parcel sent through opposite parties was received by the complainant’s son before 01.03.2016. But they have not produced evidence. The parcel was sent through opposite parties to deliver as  at the earliest time. But the opposite parties had not delivered the parcel in the right time. The opposite parties stated that complainant had sent an undeclared parcel.  Finally the opposite parties stated that as per the Carriage Act for an undeclared parcel liability is limited to Rs.100/-. The complainant extended his stay in Delhi due to the non delivery of parcel. The complainant had to come down from Delhi to procure the duplicate copy of the way bill and the same was sent to his son through the professional courier service on 05.03.2016, which caused much mental and financial difficulties to the complainant. The opposite parties had not produced any evidence to disprove the case of complainant.

     In view of the above discussions, we find that the act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.

         In the result, complaint allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as financial loss caused to the complainant and pay Rs.10,000/- compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.2500/- as cost of the proceedings, failing which  the amount except cost carries interest @9% per annum from the date of order till 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 2022.

 

                                                                                         Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                          PREETHA G NAIR: MEMBER

 

 

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                          VIJU.V.R    : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

APPENDIX

CC.NO.310/2016

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Dr.Paul Raj

 

Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1                   - Receipt dated 24.02.2016 for sending the courier

Ext.P2                   - Copy of parcel way bill No.516606 dated 24.02.2016 by  

                               Railway T.V.M.Central

Ext.P3                   - Parcel way bill No.521059 dated 05.03.2016 of Professional  

                               Courier Service

Ext.P4                   - Copy of courier receipt L-540747 dated 05.03.2016 of  

                              Professional Courier service

Ext.P5                   - Return Register cover

Ext.P6                   - Copy of letter dated 07.03.2016 address to the second  

                               Opposite party

Ext.P7                   - Copy of lawyer notice dated 24/03/2016 addressed to the

                              Opposite party

Ext.P8                   - Postal receipt dated 24.03.2016 numbers

Ext.P9                   - Return postal register cover returned from second opposite

   party

Ext.P10                 - Copy of acknowledgment card received from opposite party

 

List of witness for the opposite parties

DW1                     - A.R.Jose

List of Exhibits for the opposite parties- NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

 

                                                                                           Sd/-

PRESIDENT