Karnataka

Kolar

CC/19/2016

Sri.B.Nagaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sri.L.Nagaraj

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

Date of Filing: 20/04/2016

Date of Order: 06/12/2016

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 06^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

PRESENT

SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K., BAL LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB…..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB           ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO :: 19 OF 2016

Sri.B. Nagaraj,

Aged About 53 Years,

R/at: Kolaramma Extension,

Near Om Shakthi Temple,

Fort, Kolar Town,

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. L.Nagaraj, Advocate)                             ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The Manager,

Franch Express Network,

No.199, Hariyan Street,

C.Pallavaram,

Chennai-600 043.

Tamil Nadu.

(Placed Exparte)

 

2) The Branch Manager,

Franch Exprss Network Courier Services,

1^st Main Road, Near S.B.M.

Gowripet, Kolar-563 101.

(Rep. by Sriyuth. R.A.Mohan, Advocate)                 …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

 

BY SMT. PRATHIBHA.R.K, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has preferred this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards the damages and loss caused to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

02.   The facts in brief:-

(a)    It is contention of the complainant that, the complainant is working as a Driver in the Office of the District Officer, Economics Statistics Department at Kolar.  To meet the expenses of complainant’s daughter marriage held on 16.02.2016 and 17.02.2016 complainant sent loan application along with relevant documents to his Departmental Co-operative Society through OP-2 Courier on 18.11.2015.  But for the surprise the said envelope was not reached to the addressee even after lapse of a week.  In this regard the complainant approached OP-2 and made several oral requests, but OP-2 not even cared to take any steps.  Hence on 16.12.2015 complainant wrote to OP-2 requesting to enquire misplacement of the said envelope, but OP-2 turned hostile attitudes towards the complainant.  Hence on 23.12.2015 complainant issued legal notices to both Ops through RPAD and in spite of service of notice, OP-2 failed to any reply but OP-1 sent an evasive reply on 20.01.2016.  Due to the negligent act of the Ops courier service the complainant’s daughter marriage was hampered and as a result of which complainant suffered heavy loss and untold hardship.  Hence this complaint. 

 

03.   Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted List of documents as mentioned below:-

(i) Copy of the Courier Receipt dated: 18.11.2015

(ii) Copy of the written complaint dated: 16.12.2015

 (iii) Copy of the Legal Notice dated: 23.12.2015.

(iv) Copy of the Reply Notice dated: 20.01.2016.

(v) Copy of the postal receipts (two in numbers)

(vi) Postal acknowledgments (two in numbers)

 

04.   In spite of issuance of notice to both the OP Nos.1 & 2, OP-1 did not choose to appear before this Forum and contest the matter.  Hence on 31.05.2016 OP No.1 placed exparte.  However counsel for OP-2 appeared and filed its version resisting the claim of the complainant in toto:-

(a)    The averments made at Para-2 of the complaint is not within the knowledge of this OP-2.  The averment made at Para-3 of the complaint is admitted as true.  The allegations pertaining to complainant’s daughter marriage held on 16.02.2016 and 17.02.2016 and to meet the expenses of the said marriage he opted for loan from his departmental co-operative society were not at all known to this OP-2.  Except sending a sealed envelope on 18.11.2015 through OP-2 the contents in the envelope were also not known to this OP-2.  The further allegations of the complainant that, in spite of issuance of complaint letter to the Ops for enquiry of the misplaced envelope, OP-2 did not cared and turned hostile are hereby denied and the same is put to strict proof. 

 

(b)    Further contention of the OP-2 is that, it is true on 23.12.2015 complainant caused legal notice the Ops and this OP-2 had properly replied on 20.01.2016.  The allegations made at Para-5 of the complaint that, due to the gross negligence in sending registered letter the complainant has suffered irreparable loss which amounts to deficiency in service is utterly falsehood and hereby denied by this OP-2.  The address of the OP-1 is not correctly mentioned in the complaint whereas the office of OP-1 is situated at No.30, 10^th Street, ‘U’ Block, Annanagar, Chennai, and in view of their directions OP-2 booked complainant’s shipper document on 18.11.2015 and has sent one sealed envelope cover to the delivered office at Bangalore vide document No.471237 as numbered same shipper document sent to Bangalore Franch Network concerned area on the same day.  The entire responsibility was shifted to Bangalore area office to deliver the said consignment as per consignment address.  Under the said circumstances this OP-2 has no responsibility.  And as there is no cause of action for the complaint, this Hon’ble Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint.

 

(c)    Further OP-2 contended that, the terms and conditions of Courier shipper receipt reads thus:-

“this courier specifically limits its liability to a maximum of Rs.100/- per consignment for any cause”.

Hence the disputes and claims if any are subjected to Chennai Court Jurisdiction.  So contending, OP-2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

 

05.   On 28.06.2016 the complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief and on 23.07.2016 on behalf of OP-2 Sri. Mahesh, Branch In-charge of OP-2, has filed his affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief. 

 

06.   On 30.07.2016 counsel for OP-2 has submitted list of documents as follows:-

(i) Document Book slip with terms and conditions of the Franch Express Network.

(ii) Reply notice issued by OP-2 to complainant with postal receipt.

 

07.   On 03.09.2016 counsel for complainant submitted written arguments and on 21.10.2016 counsel for OP-2 submitted its written arguments.

 

08.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

(A) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant comes within the jurisdiction of this Forum?

(B) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2?

 (C) What order?

09.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points are:-

POINT (A):-  In the Affirmative

POINT (B):   In the Affirmative

POINT (C):-  As per the final order

for the following:-

 

REASONS

POINT (A):-

10.   On perusal of the pleadings along with affidavit evidence and documents produced by both the parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had sent an envelope cover through courier on 18.11.2015 to the Manager, Directorate of Economic Statistics Employees Credit Co-operative Society, 6^th Floor, M.S. Building, Bangalore-01.  The contention of the complainant is that, in the courier he had sent a loan application along with relevant documents to the Department of Co-operative Society though OP-2 courier service and that the same was not reached to the addressee.  Hence there is negligence act on the part of Ops and as a result the complainant had suffered heavy loss and mental agony. 

 

(a)    Per contra, OP-2 admitted that, the complainant’s sealed envelope cover was sent to Bangalore Franch Network concerned area vide document No.471237 on the same day itself and the entire responsibility shifted to Bangalore area Office.  Further OP-2 submitted that, according to the terms and conditions of the Carriage the disputes and claims if any are subject to the Chennai Court jurisdiction.  Under the head of terms and conditions printed on the courier shipper receipt the maximum liability limit is only Rs.100/- per consignment for any cause and all the disputes if any is subject to the Chennai Court Jurisdiction.  Hence the present complaint is subject to the Chennai court jurisdiction.

 

(b)    Admittedly the complainant had sent an envelope cover through OP-2 courier service.  The Op-2 has taken a contention stating that, according to the terms and conditions of the courier shipment receipt the maximum liability limit is only Rs.100/- per consignment in case of undelivered/misplaced courier and the disputes if any is subject to only before the Chennai Court Jurisdiction.  On perusal of the documents, the conditions pertaining to the consignment note were not at all explained to the complainant nor he had signed the same.  Hence the contention of the OP-2 cannot be accepted.  The complainant had sent the said courier through OP-2 and the OP-2 Office is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum hence this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

 

POINT (B) & (C):-

11.   Admittedly the complainant sent an envelope cover through courier, but said courier has not reached to its destiny nor returned back to the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service.  Further the Ops have failed to submit the tracking report of the envelope cover.  Further OP-2 has taken a contention stating that, they have sent to the Bangalore concerned area courier office hence the entire responsibility shifted to Bangalore area Office and this contention of the OP-2 cannot be acceptable as OP-2 has not produced any tracking report.  The OP-2 had collected the envelop cover with consideration amount of Rs.20/- from the complainant it is the bounden duty of the OP-2 to hand-over the same to its addressee, OP-2 cannot escape from the liability. 

 

(a)    The complainant prayed for Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and damages, for which he has not produced any document to show that, how he suffered loss/damage.  Of course the complainant sent loan application along with relevant documents to the Co-operative Society, as a result of which, he has suffered mental agony for the negligent act of the Ops.  Hence in our view it is just and proper to direct the OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost.

     

POINT (D):

12.   We proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   The present complaint filed by the complainant stands allowed with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

02.   The OP Nos.1 & 2 both are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and mental agony suffered by him.

03.   The OP Nos.1 & 2 are also hereby directed to submit their compliance report to this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

 

04.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 06^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016)

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                        MEMBER                         PRESIDENT