Date of filing : 21-06-2010
Date of order : 16-02-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 143/2010
Dated this, the 16th day of February 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
XN Computers & Data Care,
Bengachery Complex, Po.Kanhangad,671315,
Hosdurg Villageand Taluk, Kasaragod.Dt
Rep.by its Proprietor Sandeep.N.A. } Complainant
S/o.Appu.N.K.(Late) Son Light Apartments,
Nittadukkam,Hosdurg Village and Taluk.
(Adv.A.Radhakrishnan, Hosdurg)
1. The Managing Director, DTDC Courier & } Opposite parties
Cargo Limited, Regd.Office DTDC House,
No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore.47.
(Exparte)
2. Proprietor, DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited,
Bengachery Complex, Po.Kanhangad.671315.
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SRI.KT.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
Complainant is the authorized service provider of LG Mobiles. On 30-03-2010 complainant entrusted some electronic items to opposite party No.2 for delivering the same to their parental concern LG Electronics India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore. The total value of the electronics items sent was `17,905/-. The consignment did not reach its destination. On enquiry made, opposite party No.1 told that they have sent the consignment properly but opposite party No.2 requested to wait 10 days to make enquiry about the delay. The electronic items sent through opposite party No.1 were entrusted to the complainant by several mobile phone using customers for service. It is the usual practice of the complainant to deliver the repaired items to the customers within 3 or 4 days. On account of urgency complainant again contacted opposite party No.2 on 19-4-2010 but was of no avail. To the lawyer notice caused by the complainant on 6-5-2010 also opposite party did not respond. Due to the deficiency in service and irresponsibility of the opposite parties complainant sustained huge financial loss, loss to reputation and mental agony. The customers of the complainant started agitations on account of delay in delivering the repaired mobile phones. The reputation of the complainant was tarnished among the customers. Hence the complaint claiming a compensation of `95,000/- with cost of the proceedings.
2. Version of opposite party No.1 & opposite party No.2.
Complainant is a businessman and hence he is not a consumer and therefore the complaint is not maintainable. On merit it is the case of opposite party No.1 that the articles sent by the complainant was delivered to the addressee and it is not having the value as claimed by the complainant. Since some delay was caused in delivery of the articles the complainant choose to file this complaint. The goods sent by the complainant is worth less and defective. The value of the articles sent were only `17,905/- and the complainant made a huge claim regarding loss of reputation and mental agony. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. After filing the complaint the opposite parties and their counsels remained absent on 22-1-2011, 5-2-2011. Hence on 5-2-2011 opposite parties were set exparte and the case posted for evidence of complainant to 10-2-2011. On 10-2-2011 complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts A1 to A4 marked. Counsel for the complainant heard and documents perused.
4. The definite case of the complainant is that he is involved in the profession of mobile phone servicing and the defective spare parts were sent to their parent concern for replacement. But it did not reach the destination. And according to complainant it is their usual practice to return the mobile phone entrusted to them for repair within 3 or 4 days and as a result of the loss of consignment they suffered much mental agony and loss of reputation and their good will is tarnished among their customers.
5. It is quite natural that a customer caring firm or institution will suffer in the case of loss of articles entrusted by customers with them especially a firm doing the servicing of mobile phones, since now a days mobile phones are considered as a integral part of one’s life and therefore every customer will be hurry to get back their repaired mobile phones immediately after repair.
6. Though in the version, opposite parties stated that they deliver the articles after some delay there is absolutely no explanation or evidence let in by opposite parties to prove this contention. No proof of delivery is produced acknowledging the delivery of consignment. Further no explanation is put forth regarding the alleged delay. How many days delay occurred, How it happened, what was the reason for the delay etc were remained unexplained. Therefore only inference possible is that opposite parties committed grave deficiency in their service rendered to complainant. Another contention of opposite parties is that complaint is not maintainable since complainant is doing mobile phone repair services commercially and the consignment sent were part of his business. The said contention is also not acceptable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case of Harsolia Motors V. M/s National Insurance Company reported in1986-2005 CONSUMER 9756(NS). In that case the Hon’ble National Commission has held that “for any commercial purpose” means that the goods purchased or services hired should be used in an activity directly intended to generate profit.
7. In this case opposite parties have no case that complainant is involved in the business of sending articles through courier services and there by generating profit. Hence the sending of defective articles through courier for replacement or repair could not be considered a commercial activity. Therefore complainant is a consumer and the dispute mentioned is a consumer dispute.
8. Relief and costs
According to the complainant the value of the articles sent through consignment was `17905/-. But he suffered much mental agony and loss of reputation on account of his customer dealings. The complainant is therefore entitled for compensation on account of loss of reputation also.
In the result complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to pay to `17,905/- to the complainant together with a compensation of `15,000/- and a cost of `3,000/-. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which opposite parties will further liable to pay interest @ 12% for `17,905/- from the date of complaint till payment.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.Receipt issued by OP NO.2 to complainant.
A2. 6-5-2010 copy of lawyer notice.
A3&A4. Postal acknowledgement cards.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
