D.O.F - 22-07-2014
D.O.O -09-12-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. Roy Paul : President
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. : Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2014
C.C.No.207/2014
Ashokan.P,
Co.Operative Education Instructor, : Complainant
Co.Operative Training Centre,
Munnad(PO),
Chengala,
Kasaragode (Dist.),
Pin-671 541.
Manager,
Professional Courier,
Kannur District Administrative Office, : Opposite party
S.T.P.Complex,
Bank Road,
Kannur – 670 001.
O R D E R
Sri. Roy Paul, President
This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that he was working as Co-Operative Training Education Instructor and he has sent a courier through the opposite party professional courier, S.T.P. Complex, Bank Road, Kannur-1 after paying Rs.30 as their courier service charges, to the Secretary, State Co-Operative Union, Thiruvananthapuram on 07-06-2014. The said consignment contains some valuable documents and a cheque for Rs.2,56,000. But the said consignment has not served to the addressee. Hence he approached the Forum for necessary relief. Hence the complaint.
After receiving the complaint, Forum sent notice to opposite party but after the service of notice the opposite party remained absent before the Forum hence on 27-09-2014 the opposite party was set exparte.
On 28-10-2014 the complainant has filed Chief Affidavit PW1 before the Forum. The documents produced by the complainant are marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Ext. A1 is the receipt issued by the Opposite party for the consignment to the PW1 on 07-06-2014, Ext. A2 is the copy of the letter issued by PW1 to the opposite party dated 19-06-2014 and Ext. A3 is the reply dated 19-06-2014 to Ext. A2 notice.
On perusal of the evidence of complainant as PW1, and Ext. A1 to A3 it is crystal clear that the consignment as per Ext.A1 was not served to the addressee. The Ext.A2 and A3 also substantiate the same. So the act of the opposite party clearly shows that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party. The opposite party is liable to make good the loss sustained to the PW1 complainant. As per the evidence of PW1, he suffered mental agony and monetary loss on account of the deficiency of service from the side of opposite party. According to him he has lost an amount of Rs.2000 as P.T.A. benefit and suffered great mental stress, underwent treatment for High Blood Pressure etc. Thus he spent Rs.2,000 for treatment etc. He spent another sum of Rs.900 towards the bank charges and other expenses for issuance of stop memo to the bank. Moreover he claimed another sum of Rs.4,000 towards the mental torture and agony etc. But there no evidence regarding the medical expenses and bank charges etc.
So considering the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for the following reliefs and order passed accordingly.
In the result complaint allowed in part, the opposite party is directed to pay the sum of Rs.2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only)as the loss of PTA benefit, Rs.30(Rupees thirty only) as courier charge and Rs.1,000(Rupees one thousand only) as compensation along with Rs.500(Rupees five hundred only) as litigation charges to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at the liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of the Consumer protection Act.
Dated this the 9th day of December, 2014
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the complainant
A1. The receipt issued by opposite party to the complainant dated 07-06-2014.
A2. Copy of the letter issued by complainant to the opposite party
dated 19-06-2014
A3. Copy of the letter Professional Courier dated 19-06-2014
Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1.Complainant
Witness examined for the opposite party:
Nil
/Forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
