IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:            President

K.P.Preethakumari:                  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:                        Member

Dated this,  the  24^th  day of  February,  2010

C.C.No.31/09

P.N.Mohanan,

S/o Narayanan,                                                           

Residing at Madhavi,

Miller Road,

Machine Compound,                                        :                       Complainant

Post Chovva,

Kannur District.                       

Vs.

The Professional Couriers,

Room No.55,                                                              :           Opposite Party

Swadeshi Woodlands,

Arat Road, Kannur.

                                                            O R D E R

Smt. M.D.Jessy, Member.

This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The material averment contained in the complaint is as follows.  That the Opposite Party is conducting Courier Service on 08.11.08 the Complainant entrusted a parcel containing cloth worth Rs.1000 to the Opposite Party for delivering it to one Neethu.P.M. of Thrichur.  The Opposite Party collected an amount of Rs.30/- from the Complainant  for the service rendered by the Opposite Party.  It was told by the Opposite Party that the parcel will be delivered to the addressee within two days.  But the parcel neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to the Complainant.  This caused deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the complainant is claiming Rs.1000/- towards the value of the article and Rs.5000/- towards compensation.  Demanding the same the Complainant issued a lawyer notice on 18.11.08 to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party received notice on 19.11.08, but there was no response from the Opposite Party.  Hence this complaint.

On receiving the complaint, notice was issued to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party appeared and filed version admitting that the Complainant had entrusted a parcel to the Opposite Party on 08.11.08 for sending it to one Neethu.P.M. of Trichur and that the Complainant issued a lawyer notice to the Opposite Party on 18.11.08 demanding to return the parcel and for compensation for an amount of Rs.5000/- towards mental agony sustained by the Complainant for the loss of the article and the Opposite Party accepted the notice on 19.11.08.  The Opposite Party denied the other contention of the Complainant.  The Opposite Party further contented that they have forwarded the parcel for delivery to their branch at Trichur and the same reached there on 10.11.08.  If anything happened from their hands the office bearers of the branch office at Trichur is liable for the same and the Opposite Party cannot be penalized. Hence the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and the Complainant will not come under the purview of a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed.

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

1. Whether the Complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party?
3. If so the quantum of damage the Complainant is entitled to get.
4. Relief and cost.

Issue No.1:

Admittedly the Complainant entrusted a parcel on 08.11.08 to the Opposite Party, who is dealing with Courier Service for sending it to the addressee at Trichur and towards the consideration for the service availed, the Opposite Party received an amount of Rs.30/- from the Complainant.  Ext.A1 is the receipt issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant which will go to show   that the Opposite party received the article on 08.11.08 for delivering it to the consignee Neethu.P.M. of Trichur.  Here the Complainant availed a service rendered by the Opposite Party by paying a consideration.  Hence there is a contractual obligation by the Opposite Party to the Complainant to deliver the consignment to the addressee property within a reasonable time.  Hence the Complainant is definitely a consumer of the Opposite Party and this issue is answered accordingly.

 Issue No.2:

Once the acceptance of the consignment is admitted by the Opposite Party it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Party to deliver it to the addressee without any delay.  It is an admitted fact that the parcel entrusted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party was not delivered to the addressee nor it was returned to the Complainant.  The article is actually missing.  The Opposite Party washing his hand by saying that he had properly handed over for delivery to the addressee to their branch office at Trichur.  The contention of Opposite Party that it anything happened at the hands of their branch office the Opposite Party is not responsible for the same and the office bearers of the branch office should be impleaded in the party array.  After receiving the article Opposite Party is entrusting the same to their agents for delivery. Hence if any default is caused at the hands of the agents Opposite Party is responsible for the same.  No steps has been taken by the Opposite Party to enquire about the missing of the article to their branch office at Trichur.  Even through the Opposite Party received the lawyer notice issued by the Complainant they were not even cared to enquire about the matter to find out the missing article.  It can only considered as deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party and the Issue No.2 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.3 & 4:

The Complainant alleges that cloth item worth Rs.1000/- is entrusted to the Opposite Party for delivering it to the addressee.  Ext.A4 is the receipt showing the value of the article entrusted to the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party has not made any serious objection against the same.  The Opposite Party not even cared to adduce any contra evidence.  Since the article is found missing the Opposite Party is liable to pay the amount of the article to the Complainant.  The Complainant claims an amount of Rs.5000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Here the consignment containing cloths worth Rs.1000/-.  It is clear that the Complainant had suffered some mental pain due to the loss of the article.  But it does not amount to a continuing one which affects in future and the same can be properly redressed by refunding its value.  But considering the nature of deficiency of service rendered by the Opposite Party the Complainant is entitled to get a reasonable amount of compensation which we assess to the tune of Rs.1000/-.  The Complainant is also entitled to get Rs.250/- towards litigation expense.  This issue is answered accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the Opposite Party to refund Rs.1000/-, the value of the lost article and Rs.1000/- towards the compensation for the mental agony suffered by the Complainant together with Rs.250/- towards litigation expense to the complainant within one month from the date f receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act

Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                         Sd/-

President                                              Member                                   Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Receipt issued by OP

A2.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A3.Postal AD

A4.Receipt issued by SR Tex dt.6.11.08

Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examine for the opposite party: Nil

                                                /forwarded by order/

                                                 Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur