Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/350/2014

Mr.Mano Ramesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Professional Courier - Opp.Party(s)

m/s.Manikandhan

10 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 13.08.2014

                                                                          Date of Order : 10.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.350/2014

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 10^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

                                 

Mrs. Mano Ramesh,

W/o. Mr. Ramesh Kumar,

No.1, MPSN Flats, Kalathumedu Street,

Kottivakkam,

Thiruvanmiur,

Chennai.                                                                       .. Complainant.                                                    

 

    ..Versus..

 

1. The Professional Courier,

Rep. by its Chennai Main Branch Manager,

No.17, Behind Palmgrove Hotel,

Cathedral Garden Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

2. The Manager,

The Professional Couriers,

No.3/446, ECR, First Floor,

Palavakkam,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                  :  M/s. M. Manikanadhan &                      

                                                             another

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2  :  Mr. R. Sathyanarayanan

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to  pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for unfair  and deceptive trade practice and faulty, deficiency, negligent and defective service, insulting, cheating, medical cost, inconvenience, mental agony, physical pain, monetary loss and for all the hardship with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that she has sent a parcel to Kolkata through the opposite parties’ courier service on 04.06.2014.  The complainant submits that she has consigned PRADAXA 110 mg medicine to her mother Mrs. Saraswathi for the urgent use and while making consignment, the opposite party assured that the parcel will be delivered on or before 07.06.2014.  The complainant submits that the consignment was reached quite late and delivered only on 17.06.2014.   The complainant submits that the complainant sent another consignment through Blue Dart Courier on 27.06.2014 which reached to her mother within the reasonable time.   The complainant submits that she issued legal notice dated:18.06.2014 immediately after due delivery of the consignment by the opposite parties for which, the opposite parties has not sent any reply.   The delay in delivery by the opposite parties caused mental agony to the complainant.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties state that the complainant booked the consignment on 04.06.2014 without declaring the contents of the consignment, its value and without any instruction for its emergency purpose and without insuring the parcel to one Mrs. T. Saraswathi, Kolkatta.  The consignment also despatched on the same day and reached Kolkatta and the circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties consignment was delivered only on 17.06.2014.   The opposite parties state that if the complainant informed that the parcel contained tablet / medicines, it cannot be booked because it requires some other details and permissions.   The opposite parties state that the allegation that the said medicines are not available in Kolkata and is available only at Chennai is not acceptable in the absence of proof.   The opposite parties state that on 27.06.2014, the complainant sent another consignment through blue dart has nothing to do with the case.    There is no deficiency in service of any kind of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties state that the compensation claimed is imaginary and exorbitant.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  

4.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for negligent, defective service with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments. Heard the opposite parties Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that she has sent a parcel to Kolkata through the opposite parties’ courier service on 04.06.2014 as per Ex.A2 is admitted.  Further the contention of the complainant is that she has consigned PRADAXA 110 mg medicine to his mother Mrs. Saraswathi for the urgent use and while making consignment, the opposite party assured that the parcel will be delivered on or before 07.06.2014.   But the complainant has not produced any document to show that she has consigned the parcel containing PRADAXA 110 mg medicine or its value and its urgent requirement at Kolkata.  The prescription slip also has not shown to the opposite parties while booking the consignment.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the consignment was reached quite late and delivered only on 17.06.2014 which caused great inconvenience.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the complainant sent another consignment through Blue Dart Courier on 27.06.2014 as per Ex.A3 which reached to his mother within the reasonable time.   But the complainant has not pleaded and proved when it was reached Kolkata and delivered to his mother.  Further the contention of the complainant is that she issued legal notice dated:18.06.2014 as per Ex.A4 immediately after due delivery of the consignment by the opposite parties for which, the opposite parties has not sent any reply.   The delay in delivery caused mental agony for which, the complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost.  But on a careful perusal of records, it is apparently clear that the complainant without any particulars regarding the emergency of medicine booked the consignment.  Equally, the complainant has not proved the alleged assurance by the opposite parties that the parcel will be delivered within 4 days.   

6.     The learned Counsel for the opposite parties contended that admittedly, the complainant booked the consignment on 04.06.2014 without declaring the contents of the consignment, its value and without any instruction for its emergency purpose and without insuring the parcel to one Mrs. T. Saraswathi, Kolkatta.   The consignment also despatched on the same day and reached Kolkatta and the circumstances beyond the control of the opposite parties consignment was delivered only on 17.06.2014.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that if the complainant informed that the parcel contained tablet / medicines, it cannot be booked because it requires some other details and permissions.  Equally, the complainant has not whispered anything about the contents of the consignment which is a life saving medicine.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the allegation that the said medicines are not available in Kolkata and is available only at Chennai is not acceptable in the absence of proof.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that on 27.06.2014, the complainant sent another consignment through blue dart has nothing to do with the case.  Because admittedly, the consignment was booked with the opposite parties on 04.06.2014 and was duly delivered on 17.06.2014 due to unforeseeable circumstances.   There is no deficiency in service of any kind of the opposite parties.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the compensation claimed is imaginary and exorbitant.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complaint has to be dismissed.

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 10^th day of December 2018. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	27.05.2014	Copy of prescription slip
Ex.A2	04.06.2014	Copy of receipt issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ex.A3	27.06.2014	Copy of shipment / cash receipt bill and Courier cover
Ex.A4	18.06.2014	Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant with AKD

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT