DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024.

PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.

           : SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                : SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.

                                                                                                               DATE OF FILING: 12.10.2023.                                              

CC/285/2023

Ameer Hamza, Age 60,                                                                  - Complainant

S/o. Saithalu, Managing Partner,

Alankar Mettals, 31/675,

Market Road, Palakkad Taluk,

Palakkad District-678 001.

(By Adv.Girish K. Kochulli)                                                       

                                                                                Vs

 1.  The Managing Director,                                                                -Opposite Parties

Jayam Parcel Service, 244,

South Marrat Street,

Sappani Kovil Stop,

South Gate Madurai,

Tamilnadu-625 001.

2.The Managing Director,

Leela Travels and Parcels,

Thalikulathil Building,

Door No.27/322,

 L.C.98 186/8, NH Road,

Manapullikavu,

 Kunnathurmedu Post

Palakkad Taluk,

Palakkad District-678 013.

   (All OPs Ex-parte)

                                                                          ORDER

BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.

1.       Pleadings of the complainant.   

The complainant purchased 120 numbers of Steel Containers from Madurai on 22.08.2023 and sent them through the parcel service of the first opposite party on the same day.  It was to be delivered at Palakkad through the 2^nd opposite party.  The opposite parties failed to deliver the containers in time.  Hence, the items could not be sold to the customers who had booked for the same for Onam celebration as a result of which the complainant suffered loss of goodwill ultimately resulting in loss of business.  Though the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties through his counsel, the opposite parties did not bother to send even a reply.  Hence, this complainant seeking Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

2.      Notices sent to the opposite parties were returned with endorsement ‘refused’.  Hence, their names were called in open court and were set exparte.

3.      The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A7 as evidence.  Ext.A1 is the booking receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party for sending the parcel,  Ext.A2 is bill for the containers purchased, Ext.A3 is the online letter issued by the 1^st opposite party, Ext.A4 is the complaint filed by the complainant with Town North Police Station, Palakkad, Ext.A5 is the copy of the lawyer notice sent by Adv. Girish K. Nochulli to the 1^st opposite party on behalf of the complainant, Ext.A6 is the online acknowledgment of the above lawyer notice and Ext.A7 is the receipt issued for Rs.950/- by the 2^nd opposite party.

4.      As the opposite parties did not make any counter pleading in the case, the onus of proving a prima facie case against the opposite party lies with the complainant.

                      From the documents marked, it is evident that the goods booked on 22.08.2023 (Ext.A1) with the 1^st opposite party were finally delivered to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party only on 30.08.2023 (Ext.A7).  Hence, there was inordinate delay on the part of the opposite parties which caused financial loss to the complainant.  This is a definite case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

5.      Resultantly, the complaint is allowed ordering the following;

          1. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and resultant financial loss.

          2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

Pronounced in open court on this the 26^th day of February, 2024.

                                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                                       VINAY MENON .V,

                                     PRESIDENT.

                                        Sd/-

                                                                     KRISHNANKUTTY N .K,

                                                                                  MEMBER.

                                    APPENDIX

            Documents marked from the side of the complainant:

Ext.A1: The copy of the booking receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party for sending the parcel on 22.08.2023.

Ext.A2:  The copy of the bill for the containers purchased.

Ext.A3:  The copy of the online letter issued by the 1^st opposite party to the petitioner to take delivery of article through the 2^nd opposite party.

Ext.A4:  The copy of the complaint filed by the complainant with Town North Police Station, Palakkad.

Ext.A5:  The copy of the lawyer notice sent by Adv. Girish K. Kochulli to the 1^st opposite party on behalf of the complainant.

Ext.A6:  The copy of the online acknowledgment of the above lawyer notice.

Ext.A7:   The copy of the receipt issued for Rs.950/- by the 2^nd opposite party.

Cost : 10,000/-.

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission ProcedureRegulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.