DOF. 6 / 3 /09

                                                           DOO.13/7/10

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

Dated this, the  13^th    day of  July      2010

C.C.No.69/2009

   K.P.Indu,

‘Smrithi’, House No.5,

Indira Nagar,

P.O.Chirakkal, Pallikulam.                                                       Complainant

 (Rep. by Adv.Sreeja D.K)

Professional Courier,

Suras complex,

P.O.Chirakkal,

Puthiyatheru,Kannur Dt.                                                             Opposite Party

 (Rep. by Adv.V.C.Pramodkumar)

O R D E R

Smt.M.D.Jessy, Member

                     This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation.

            The averment of the complainant is as follows: The brilliance college Thiruvananthapuram sent some books through courier in the name of complainant on 16.2.09. Opposite party received this parcel on 17.2.09 and informed the complainant after three days over telephone to fetch the parcel from their office. Since the complainant is having small baby she has informed her inconvenience to go to office but they did not deliver the parcel to her in her house. Moreover, they were rudely behaved while talking over telephone.  She was compelled to contact the people in Brilliance College, Thiruvananthapuram several time. But the problem could not be solved. Since they informed that they will return the parcel after keeping the same two days in their office. Complainant’s husband after taking one day leave went and collected the parcel from the office of the opposite party. Thereafter complainant sends a registered letter but they did not receive it. Hence this complaint for an order for an amount of rs.1000/- as compensation for the mental agony and economic loss that she had been suffered.

            Pursuant to notice opposite party entered appearance and filed version denying the allegation of complainant. The opposite party contended as follows: A sealed cover was sent by Brilliance College, Trivandrum in complainant’s address and the same was taken to the addressee complainant on 19.2.09 for delivery. Since the complainant was not available in her address on 19.2.09 and the door of the house was seen locked opposite party was constrained to take back the cover. Thereafter the opposite party asked the complainant to collect the parcel from his office and the same was collected from the office on 21.2.09. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this oppose party. Hence to dismiss the complaint.

                        On the above pleadings the following issues were raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

2.      Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?

3.       Relief and cost.

                        The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1, A2etc on the side of complainant and Ext. B1 on the side of the opposite party.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

            Admittedly a parcel which is a sealed cover sent by Brilliance College, Thiruvananthapuram on 16.2.2009 reached in the office of the opposite party. The complainant’s allegation is that the parcel was reached to the office of the opposite party three days before she was informed of the same. Since she was having child she informed her difficulty to go to the office to get the parcel but opposite party did not deliver the same in her house. His talk over the telephone was also rude. When it was informed that the parcel will be sent back after keeping it two days, if it has not been taken delivery the husband of the complainant went there taking leave from duty and took delivery of the parcel.

            Complainant’s husband filed chief affidavit in tune with the pleadings and adduced evidence as PW1. Complainant produced two documents Exts.A1 and A2. Ext.A1 is only a blank unfilled form of courier consignment note where in only the date 16.2.09 can be seen. It does not contain even the signature of the sender. Ext.A2 is the returned letter. The content of the letter is same as that of the pleadings of the complainant. She alleged therein that she has incurred heavy loss financially and mentally, her husband took a day leave the parcel was contained study materials and she was informed of arrival of parcel after a delay of three days etc. The main allegation is that the parcel had not delivered in her residence even after long request. Except the interested testimony of PW1 there is nothing to prove the allegations of complainant over and above the admitted facts. Complainant even did not give evidence to the effect that the oppose party is legally bound to deliver the article in her residence at any cost.

            If the entire mater considered together it can be seen that there was parcel in the address of complainant and information given to complainant with respect to its arrival and the same was received by the husband of the complainant.

            Ext.B1 produced by opposite party shows that opposite party has made attempt to deliver the parcel in her house. Ext.B1 is the delivery run sheet which contains altogether delivery of 5 parcels recorded. In the ordinary course there is no need to disbelieve it. On the same date of return of door delivery complainant was informed of the arrival of parcel is an admitted fact. Husband of the complainant there after received the parcel from the office of the opposite party. Then the main allegation remains to be considered is  the actual loss suffered by the complainant due to non delivery of parcel in the residence of complainant. Complainant has to prove first of all the opposite party is legally bound to deliver the article in the residence of complainant at any cost. Complainant did not even attempt to give evidence to that effect. More over, complainant did not place any facts before the Forum with respect to the losses that she has suffered. The actual loss suffered is not proved. At least the complainant could have produced some records to shows that her husband took one day leave for this purpose alone. Under the given circumstances we find difficult to say that complainant could establish deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Complainant could not prove his case. Hence we are of opinion that complainant is not entitled for any remedy. The issues 1 to 3 are found against complainant.

                  In the result the complaint dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                        Sd/-                            Sd/-              Sd/-

President                      Member           Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Copy of the receipt issued by OP

A2.Returned notice

Exhibits for the opposite party

B1.Delivery run sheet dt.19.2.09

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1. Arunkumar. K.

Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil

                                                /forwarded by order/

Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur