CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Palakkad, Kerala
Dated this the 19th day of August 2014
PRESENT : SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 22/01/2014
: SMT. SHINY.P.R ,MEMBER
: SMT. SUMA K.P, MEMBER
CC.NO.11/2014
V.C.Janardhanan,
VI/205, Shantashree,
Keralassery, Palakkad – 678 641 : Complainant
(Party in Person.)
Vs
The Office –in-charge,
The Professional Couriers,
Coimbatore Road, Palakkad. : Opposite party
(By Adv.M.Rajesh)
O R D E R
By Smt. Shiny . P. R. Member.
Brief facts of the case:- The complainant submitted that on three occasions the opposite party infringed his right by not delivering the articles and sending back it to the consignees destination. Firstly on 2-7-2012 his friend Adv.V.P.Yousuf from Kalpetta had sent an emergent parcel containing very important document on the address of the complainant. The said document was returned to the sender by the opposite party with the reason “could not locate the address- No phone number”. The non delivery of parcel has resulted in loss of time for taking steps at the Kalpetta/Ernakulam courts in Appeal case and in effect caused incurrence of an in fructuous expenses to this complainant in the matter. Secondly on 10-6- 2013 M/s Indus Motors, Palakkad booked an article to complainant’s address which was not delivered to him and returned to the sender only for the reason that the same was not collected by the complainant at the predetermined station by the opposite party. Thirdly on 5-7-2013 S.Sathyam booked an article at Coimbatore CJB Service centre and addressed to complainant. The documents were of client of complainant in respect of family pension matter of a soldier’s widow, which were urgently to be produced at the Armed Forces Tribunal, Ernakulam. As the same was not delivered for the same reason as above, the complainant had to face hardships for taking necessary steps. This was on account of the deliberate service deficiency committed by the opposite party. Opposite party is not delivered the articles consigned. Deliveryman deciding to hand it over to his choice destination and informing the consignees to collect it from that person/place as the case may be. On 8-8-2013 complainant sent a lawyer notice to compensate for the willful, negligent and deficient service of the opposite party. On 10-1-2014 opposite party reply for the same denying the deficiencies in service. Hence the complaint.
Complaint was admitted and issued notice to opposite party and they entered appearance and filed their version.
The contention in their version is that usually the courier is mainly depended by the business class of people for the quick delivery of consignment. It is not as of a postal service. Coimbatore branch office at the time of booking of the consignment is specifically made known to the consignor that the consignment will not be delivered to door steps of the consignee and the nearest delivery point is at the high school road bus stop Keralssery. Consignor is very well aware of this fact and did not raise any complaints at the time of the return of the consignment. The courier is reached its destination but the complainant is failed to collect the same or intentionally returned the same even after receiving the information that the consignment is reached nearby. There is no deficiency from the part of opposite party and no liability to pay any compensation to complainant. Hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Both parties filed their chief affidavit. Ext. A1 to A3 are marked from the side of complainant. Ext. B1 series marked on the side of opposite party.
The following issues are to be considered.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
2. If so what is the relief and cost?
ISSUES 1 & 2
Both parties heard: - We have perused the documents on record. From Ext.A2 it is seen that the reason for non delivery is rural area and no phone number. It is the duty of the opposite party to collect the phone number of the consignee at the time of booking of parcel. They took the consignment for delivery knowing that the Keralassery is a rural area. Opposite party submitted in the counter that they informed the consignor that the consignment will not be delivered to the door steps of the consignee. No evidence is adduced by the opposite party to prove this contention. Opposite party has the duty to deliver the articles at the door steps of the consignee. These acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Similarly complainant is failed to prove his loss sustained by the act of the opposite party. .
In the view of above discussions, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. Hence complaint is allowed partly. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees Thousand only) to complainant as compensation for the mental agony suffered due to deficiency in service and Rs. 1000/-(Rupees Thousand only) as cost of proceedings.
Ordered amount shall be paid within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of August 2014
Sd/-
Smt. Seena. H
President
Sd/-
Smt. Shiny. P.R
Member
Sd/-
Smt.Suma K.P
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 - Notice issued by the complainant to opposite party’s branch at Wayanad
dtd.18/07/2012.
Ext.A2 - Non delivery letter issued by opposite party dated 05/07/2013.
Ext.A3 - Web copy of Declared policy of Professional Couriers for delivery of parcels/
Articles to the clients/customers.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties
Ext.B1- Reply letter to complainant dtd.06/01/2014 issued by opposite party’s advocate
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite parties
Nil
Cost allowed
Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceeding.
