Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/449/2005

S.Kandasamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Professional Courierrs, - Opp.Party(s)

S.Baskaran

20 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   26.07.2005

                                                                        Date of Order :   20.12.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT 

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

                DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO. 449/2005

TUESDAY THIS  20^TH  DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

S. Kandasamy,

S/o. Mr.Swaminathan,

No.22, Sowmya Nagar First Street,

Medavakkam,

Chennai 601 302.                                                 ..Complainant              

                                        ..Vs..

1.  The Branch Manager,

The Professional Couriers,

30 L.B. Road,

Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 41.

 

2. The Professional Couriers,

Regional Head Office,

Thiruvikka Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai 600 014.                                                 ..Opposite parties

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant         :  M/s. S. Baskaran

Counsel for the opposite party       : M/s. S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties   under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction  to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony for negligence and for deficiency of service and to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

1.  The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant has booked a Courier bearing receipt No.690171315 dated 4.4.2005 addressed to the New India Assurance Company Ltd, West Tambaram, Chennai-45 having paid the necessary charges as claimed by the 1^st opposite party of Rs.7/- and for which the cash receipt acknowledging the same was given by the 1^st opposite party.   The said Courier would contain a cheque bearing No.430785, for Rs.1535, dated 1.4.2005 drawn State Bank of India, Selaiyur Branch, Chennai 73, to be paid to New India Assurance Company, Chennai-45 for the renewal of the Insurance Policy with respect of Motor Car bearing No.TN 04 A 0744 and a Motor Bike bearing No.TN 22 K 0113.  

2.     The complainant was very much shocked to hear the news from the Insurance company that till the due date on 11.4.2005 no cheque for the Insurance Premium Amount was received by them, and immediately when the same was enquired with the 1^st opposite party, the complainant was not given a proper reply, rather the complainant was made to run from pillar to post, and even with a number of telephonic messages and personal visits, the status of the courier was not explained and the opposite party themselves could not trace out the real position of the parcel cover, but tried to give lame excuse, and even till date the status of the courier was not explained to the complainant.   

3.     Since the complainant is working as a Superintending Engineer (H, Tamil Nadu Road Sector Project, who have taken loan from the Government to purchase the motor car and it was made responsibility to the complainant to report to the Government the renewal of Insurance policy in time, and due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party, the Insurance Policy was not renewed in time and the report was not made in time to the Government, due to which, the ability, responsibility, service and my reputation as an officer was seriously questioned, due to which there was a serious set back in my professional practice.    Due to the inefficiency, irresponsibility and deficiency in service of the 1^st opposite party and dereliction of duty in service the complainant has suffered loss and injury on account of deprivation, harassment, mental agony.   Then the legal notice caused by him was returned for the reason “Refused to Receive” by the 1^st opposite party.    Hence this compliant.

4. Written Version of  opposite parties are  in briefly as follows:

         The opposite parties denies all the allegations and averments contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted hereunder.   It is admitted that the said consignment was booked on 4.4.2005 by the complainant to deliver the consignment to its destination at Tambaram Chennai-45.   As per the terms and conditions mentioned overleaf the receipt, it is very clearly mentioned that the consigners are required to disclose the contents and the value of the consignment.  But the consigner has failed to perform his part of contract.   The said consignment was dispatched for the delivery on the very same day, but due to the unforeseen reasons, the same was misplaced before it could reach the appropriate addressee.  

5.     As soon as they were informed about the said misplacement, they informed the consignor over phone, about the same and also requested them to take appropriate action /alternative because of the loss of the said consignment.    The  opposite parties further state that in case the cheque, if there any, could not reach the insurance company, they will charge only Rs.50/-.  Moreover, the opposite parties had informed the consigner about the misplacement of the said consignment very much on the time and the consigner / complainant would have taken proper step for the renewal of the insurance policy.    Therefore, it is highly improper on the part of the complainant to claim a sum of Rs.57,000/-.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

6.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties not field and there is no documents marked on the side of the opposite parties.   

 

7.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

    Opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

8. Point No.1

        Regarding this point on careful perusal of the rival submissions put- forth on either side it is crystal clear that it is not fully disputed about the  booking of courier of one cover which contains the cheque bearing No.430785 drawn on State Bank of India, Selaiyur Branch,  Chennai-73 with the opposite party which addressed to the New India Assurance Company, Chennai-45, having paid Rs.7/- towards charges for consignment of the said courier post.    The receipt for booking the courier is marked as Ex.A1.   It is further learnt that the said courier cover has not been delivered to the concerned Insurance Company within reasonable time and thereby the renewal of the Motor Insurance Policy for the Motor Bike bearing No.TN 22 K 0113,  belongs to the complainant within the due date and caused much inconvenience to the complainant and also been clearly explained by the complainant.   The relevant documents are marked as Ex.A2 to Ex.A4.  Furthermore after difficult steps only, the insurance policy has been renewed by the complainant which is due to the inefficiency, irresponsibility and deficiency in service of the 1^st opposite party and thereby caused hardship and mental agony to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant sent a letter Ex.A5 to opposite party-1  and the same was returned, the returned cover is marked as Ex.A6.   Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice Ex.A7 to the opposite party-1 and the same was returned as refused to receive by the opposite party-1.  

9.     While so, on going through the written version as well as evidence of the opposite parties, it is admitted that in respect of the booking of the consignment by the complainant and immediately the consignment was dispatched for delivery on the very same day, but due to the unforeseen reasons the same was misplaced before it could reach the appropriate addressee.    From this version, the opposite parties have clearly admitted that the said consignment has not been duly delivered to the concerned addressee.  But at the same time the opposite parties denied the averments that the complainant disclosed the contents and the value of the consignment at the time of booking and in fact the complainant has not at all disclosed the same, as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the over leaf of the receipts. 

10.    At this juncture it is seen from the above facts it is crystal clear that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party  in not delivering the consignment, booked by the complainant within the due time and thereby caused much inconvenience to the complainant.   Not only that the opposite parties have not come forward to comply the demands or as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the over leaf the opposite parties have not taken any effective steps to compensate the same.  In this regard the attitude of the opposite parties are highly improper and serious lethargic.   

 

11.    At the outset the learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon the following decision

1996 (50) Supreme 439

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Bharathi Knitting Company

..Vs..

DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd.

 

 

It is held that

“The National Commission was right in limiting the liability undertaken in the contract entered into by the parties and in awarding the amount for deficiency in service to the extent of the liability undertaken by the respondent.”

 

In order to enlighten that as per the terms and conditions of contract the liability of the opposite party for any loss of damage to the consignment was limited to Rs.100/- and therefore even for assuming that the opposite parties have committed deficiency of service,  the opposite parties have only liable to pay Rs.100/- towards compensation.  

12.    In the light of the above facts and circumstances this forum concludes that the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties have clearly proved by the complainant acceptable evidence.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

13.    POINT No.:-2

        In view of the conclusion arrived in point No.1 though the complainant is entitled for compensation but  as already discussed the above compensation is limited to Rs.100/-.   At the same time on the facts and consideration that the opposite parties have failed to pay the said meager amount of Rs.100/- though already adumbrated even in the terms and conditions of their receipts  which cannot be taken s easily and therefore the award of interest of the said amount of Rs.100/- is just and proper.   Further if the opposite party have already complied the said relief, there is no need of litigation before this forum and also considering the duration of litigation because of the delayed practice adopted by the opposite parties, the complainant is entitled for cost towards litigation expense.  Thus the point No.2 is also answered accordingly. 

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.100/- (Rupees hundred only) towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 9%  p. a. from the date of this complaint i.e. 26.7.2005 to till the date of this order i.e. 20.12.2016 and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to the complainant.

 The above amount shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

          Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  20^th   day  of  December   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  4.4.2005   - Copy of courier receipt. 

Ex.A2-  9.5.2005   - Copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.A3- 4.2.1997    - Copy of Extract of loan details.

Ex.A4-         -       - Copy of Stop payment letter.

Ex.A5- 10.5.2005  - Copy of letter from complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.A6- 3.6.2005    - Copy of returned cover with acknowledgement.

Ex.A7- 27.5.2005  - Copy of legal notice.

Opposite parties’ side documents:  ..Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.