By Smt. Bindu, R,  President:

          This  complaint is filed by  Muhasin Rashid,  S/o. Kunhimuhammed,  aged 27 years,  Kallingal (H),  Chundale Post,  Wayanad- 673 123 against  the  Professional  Couriers,  Salma Tower (Nayana Tower), Nr. Aroma Hospital,  Pallithazha Road,  Kalpetta Post,  Wayanad- 673 121, Represented by its  Manager  as Opposite Party alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the  Opposite Party.

          2. The Complainant states that  he was urgently in need of sending a package containing an apple watch worth Rs. 40,900/– to his brother in law Mr. Abdul Muneer T V, who is an automotive engineer at Bangalore residing at Flat No.4026, D Block, Presitige Kensington Garden Apartment, HMT Estate, Jalahalli, Bangalore which he accidently left at the Complainant’s house during his visit.   Due to covid- 19 protocols and restrictions it was not easy to travel one from Kerala to Karnataka and back. Hence the Complainant approached the Opposite Party, who claimed to be a company with more than 3 decades of expertise in its arsenal, and  proved itself as an ultimate service provider and a pioneer in the Indian courier and cargo industry which is safe and fast, for sending the above said package to his brother in law in the above said address. Before booking the consignment to Bangalore as stated, the Complainant informed the officials of the Opposite Party that the package contains costly watch worth Rs. 40,900/and he also enquired whether it is safe to send through their courier. The officials of the Opposite Party assured that the consignment will be delivered within 3 days safely without any damage or loss and they also suggested that it is not safe to note the value of article in the package note since it is an interstate transit. On believing the said words of the Opposite Party officials, the Complainant booked consignment through the Opposite Party to Bangalore on 20-04-2021 and paid Rs.90/- as the courier charge in cash and obtained a booking receipt No. 4085155 of the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party failed to deliver the consignment as promised. When the Complainant tracked the consignment status after 5 days through the website of the Opposite Party it is found that the same was still in transit and the delivery details shown in the status as “Door Locked”. The Complainant further states  that he had specifically written the  name and address of the consignor with contact numbers. Further enquiry with his brother in law, it is understood that the delivery agent neither tried to deliver the package in the address nor to contact the addressee over phone. Complainant states that his brother in law was there in the address on those days expecting the delivery of the package send by the Complainant through the Opposite Party. On 25^th  April 2021, the Complainant’s brother in law contacted the Opposite Party office at Bangalore to know the status of the package but the Opposite Party’s office at Bangalore has not responded to his queries. Hence the Complainant went to Opposite Party’s office at Kalpetta and enquired about the package, the Opposite Party checked the status and informed the Complainant that the last status updated on 24, April 2021 as Door locked. It is further assured by the Opposite Party that the delivery office may hold the package for 2-3 days to make another attempt for delivery or else the package will be returned to the sender. The Opposite Party further assured that the Complainant will not lose the article inside the package and he will get back it safely within a week. Hence the Complainant waited some more days expecting the delivery and the result was negative. Hence the brother in law of the Complainant personally visited the Opposite Party’s office at Yeswanthpur for collecting the package but the officials of that office informed him that the parcel was not available with them and they don’t have any idea about the said parcel. Hence the brother in law of the Complainant had registered an online complaint through OP’s website but not received any response for that. Hence he sent an email to opposite party and the OP replied the same and requested delivery address again, which was served to the OP through e mail,  but afterwards no proper response from the Opposite Party. Thereafter it was the routine of the Complainant and his father Mr. Kunhimuhammed to visit Opposite Party’s office frequently to enquire about the package but all his effort to get the package was not succeeded because of the non co operation of the Opposite Party and their negligence. The opposite party always said lame excuses to avoid  the presence of Complainant and also to escape from their liabilities. The package was still undelivered to the addressee and not returned to the Complainant. The status of package was still undelivered. The Complainant strongly believes that the package may be misused by the employees of the Opposite Party and the same was untraceable by the Opposite Party because of the same. The Opposite Party is responsible for not delivering the package in time to the addressee or return to sender if not delivered. The Opposite Party is also responsible for the value of the consignment if it is lost or damaged during transit.   The complainant further states that the act and conduct of the Opposite Party is not only legally impermissible but also socially abhorring and such acts have to be prevented by the intervention of  this Hon’ble Forum.  All these inconveniences were occurred due to the negligence and deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Party and these acts affected the Complainant and his family and the mental agony, inconvenience and damages caused due to the act of the Opposite Party cannot be equated in terms of money. The Opposite Party is responsible for the inconvenience and discomforts caused to Complainant and the Opposite Party is liable and responsible  to pay the  courier charge of Rs.90/- paid by the Complainant to Opposite Party, also liable to pay Rs. 40,900/- as value of item (apple watch) in the package and compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards the   acts of         sheer negligence, deficiency of service, unfair trade practice, damages, mental agony caused etc. Hence this complaint.

          3. Upon  notice from the Commission the Opposite Party appeared and filed  their version denying the allegations raised  in the complaint .  It is  stated by the Opposite Party in their version  that the  averment in Para No.2 that the Complainant urgently need to sent a package containing an Apple Watch worth Rs.40,900/-  to his brother in law Mr. Abdul Muneer.  T.V,  is  false and the Complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The Opposite Party submits that the Complainant only made an ordinary courier booking of Rs.90/- which does not carry an insurance coverage for the product. It is stated that the Opposite Party informed the Complainant that if the product that he intends to sent through courier is a valuable item for a cost up to Rs.20,000/- it is advisable to send the courier through the premium service which cost Rs.280/- if it is a Watch, original certificate, urgent medicine, etc. along with bill/declaration it will carry an insurance coverage to the extent of Rs.20,000/- and valuables above Rs.20,000/- cannot be sent through Courier. The Opposite Party submits that if a courier of a value of Rs.20,000/- or above the same should be sent as a premium service and an E-way bill should be taken, but the same was not done by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party further submits that the Complainant’s courier weighed 250 gms, and the Complainant submitted that the value of the product is below Rs.4,000/- and an used watch, the same should be sent in the ordinary courier and the Complainant booked the ordinary courier and booking receipt No.KPT 4085155, dated 20/4/2021 was issued to the Complainant.  The averment  that the Opposite Party failed to deliver the consignment as promised is false, and the Opposite Party submits that the consignment has been received in Bangalore on 23/04/2021 and the same was delivered to the address on 24/04/2021 at 12.53 p.m. and as per the delivery agent the door was locked and the delivery agent informed the same to the addressee and asked the addressee to collect the same from the Yeshwanthpur Office. The further averment that the delivery agent neither tried to deliver the package in the address nor to  contact the addressee over phone, and the Complainant’s brother in law was there in the address on those dates expecting the delivery of the package sent by the Complainant through the Opposite Party is false and the Complainant  is put to strict proof of the same.  It is contended by the Opposite Party that on 25/04/2021 the Complainant’s brother in law contacted Opposite Party’s office at Bangalore to know the status of the package, but the Opposite Party’s office at Bangalore did not respond to his queries is false and the brother in law of the Complainant has not approached the Opposite Party’s office at Bangalore at any time. It is  further contented that the statement of  the Complainant that he went to the Opposite Party’s office at Kalpetta and enquired about the package is a false claim by the Complainant and the Complainant has not come to the Opposite Party’s office.  It is stated in the version that the averments that there was negligence and deficiency of service from the part of the Opposite Party and these acts  have affected the Complainant and his family and the mental agony, inconvenience and damages caused due to the act of the Opposite Party cannot be equated in terms of money are false and the Complainant is put to strict proof of the same. Further averments in the complaint that the Opposite Party is responsible for the inconvenience and discomforts caused to the Complainant and the Opposite Party is liable and responsible to pay the value of item in the package is false. The Complainant is trying to gain illegal benefit  causing monetary loss to the Opposite Party. Further averment that the Opposite Party is liable to pay courier charge of Rs.90/- and to pay  Rs.40,900/- and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the act of sheer negligence, deficiency of service, unfair trade practices, damages, mental agony, etc. are false and the  Complainant is put to strict proof of the same.

          4. The Opposite Party denies the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice alleged against the Opposite Party and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost to the Opposite Party.

          5. Evidence in this case  consists  of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts. A1, A2 and Exts. X1 & X2 from the side of the Complainant.  Even though  Ext.A3 the e-mail communication is produced  the same is marked  subject to proof.  From the side of the Opposite Party,  OPW1 was examined. 

          6. The following are the main points to be analysed in this case.

1.  Whether  the Complainant had proved  deficiency of service or unfair trade practice from the side of the Opposite Party?
2. If so the quantum of compensation and costs to be awarded to the Complainant.

7. Heard  both sides and perused the records.  The Commission has made a

thorough  verification on the contents of the complaint, version and the evidences produced by both the parties.

          8. The gist of the complaint is that the Complainant had sent  an apple  watch  by courier to Bangalore belonging to the brother in law of the Complainant which is forgotten by him  during his visit.  It is  also alleged by the Complainant that the Complainant informed the Opposite Party that the  article is costly watch worth Rs.40,900/-  and enquired about the conditions and  it was  told by the Opposite Party that the courier will be delivered  to the addressee  without fail and assured that  no damage will be caused to the article and hence it was sent by ordinary courier.  The Complainant was in natural  expectation that the article will reach the destination within 2-3 days and when enquired with brother in law on the date of expected delivery it was told that he had not received the parcel.  Then the Complainant enquired the same with  Opposite Party in many occasions but there was no prompt reply from their side.  After that the Complainant  traced the track and it was  seen that the parcel could not be delivered  since the door  was locked.   Further the Complainant approached the Opposite Party and learnt that the courier has not been delivered to the addressee  at Bangalore.

          9. During cross examination of the Complainant,  it was come out in evidence that “ Ft¶mSv  safe Bbn  Abbv¡mw F¶mWv AhÀ ]d-ªn-cp-¶-Xv.  AXp-sIm-­mWv AXv opt  sNbvX-Xv.  20,000/þ cq] hsc aqey-ap-ff km[-\-§Ä insure sNt¿-­-Xp-Å-Xp-sIm­v premium courier  Ab-bv¡-W-sa¶v ]d-ªn-cp-¶n-Ã.  E bill create   sN¿-W-sa-¶p-f-f-Xp-sIm­v 20000/þ  cq] hsc aqe-y-ap-ff km[-\-§Ä   premium  courier   Ab-bv¡-W-sa¶v ]d-ªn-«n-Ô.  During the examination nothing  was brought  out to prove the  fact that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party.

          10. During  cross examination of  OPW1 he deposed that “ Cu kw`-h-§-fn Rm³ t\cs¯ CS-s]-«n-«p­v.  lÀPn-¡m-c³ h¶v ]cmXn ]d-bp-t¼mÄ Rm³ _m¥qÀ Hm^o-kp-ambn _Ô-s¸-«n-cp-¶p”.  OPW1 further deposed that “ Addressee Øe-¯n-sÃ-¦n  H¶p c­p {]mh-iyw attend sN¿m-dp­v  phone no.  Ds­-¦n XoÀ¨-bmbpw B \¼-dn _Ô-s¸Spw _Ô-s¸-«m A¡m-cyw tcJ-s¸-Sp¯pw F¶n«pw consignment deliver sN¿m³ ]än-bn-sÃ-¦n sender ¡v  Xncn-¨-b¡pw”.  OPW1  further deposed that “]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ consignment X¶-t¸mÄ  declaration hm§n-bn-«n-Ã.  AXv  OP Øm]-\-¯nsâ Npa-X-e-bm-Wv.   Ext.A1  se entries hcp-¯n-bXv R§-fpsS staff BWv.   Ext.A1    ]cm-Xn-¡m-csâ H¸n-Ã. used watch    BWv consignment   F¶v Agent t\mSv ]d-ªn-cp-¶p.  Valuable item service   BsW-¦n premium service  hgn Ab-bv¡Ww AXv sNt¿-­Xv Agent  sâ  duty BWv”   OPW1   also deposed that “item  Bangalore   Â F¯n-b-Xmbn  X2 document sIm­v  ImWmw.  Consignment   Xncn-¨-b-¨n-«n-Ã.  Bangalore Office   sh¨mWv  consignment   \jvS-s¸-«n-«p-f-f-Xv.  OPW1 further deposed that “R§-fpsS ]¡Â h¶ Cu consignment   FhnsStbm miss  Bbn-«p-­v”.   

11. Over all consideration  reveals that there is  mistake on the part of the Complainant in booking the consignment as he had not taken sufficient and necessary precaution while booking the consignment.  Apart from the  oral testimony of the Complainant  there is no evidence to show that the consignment  is an apple watch worth   Rs.40,900/-  as stated in the complaint.  He is duty bound to insist the Opposite Party to make  an  entry at least in Ext.A1 bill that what is the article in the  parcel which is not done by the Complainant.      

          12. During the argument,  the Opposite Party had submitted a copy of a decision reported in 2013(3)CLT 530 Trackon Courier Pvt V. Richh Paul & Ors  the Panjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the  liability of the courier is  limited  to four times the booking  amount as per terms and  conditions  of the booking slip in that case.

          13. In the  case in hand  the terms and conditions mentioned in the back side of Ext.A1 condition No.3 says “we request you not  to enclose cash in the courier consignment and no to book Jewels,  Textiles,  High value gift articles,  share certificate and  Travel documents.  Our liability in cases of any loss or damage to the consignment shall not exceed Rs.100/- ” . 

          14. More over the OPW1 deposed that it is the duty of the Opposite Party that to receive declaration and it is also admitted by  OPW1 that no signature of the Complainant obtained in Ext.A1 while booking the consignment.  It is also admitted by  OPW1 that the agent was  informed that the consignment is used watch and it is the duty of the agent to book the consignment through premium service in the case of valuable items which is also not done by the Opposite Party.  As far as the article in the consignment is considered  there is no evidence apart from the interest testimony of the Complainant that the article was apple watch worth Rs.40,900/-.  As per     clause 2 of the terms and conditions,  the liability is limited  to Rs.100/- in case of loss or damage to the consignment.

          15. Considering the entire aspects  in toto,  the Commission found that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party in not delivering  the consignment and when it is admitted by the Opposite Party that the consignment is not delivered and is lost from the Opposite Party. Hence point No.1 is proved  by the  Complainant in his favour.

          16. Since  point No.1 is found in favour of the Complainant,  the following orders are passed.

1.  Opposite Party  is directed to pay Rs.100/-  (Rupees One  hundred only)  to the Complainant towards the loss of the consignment.
2. The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/-  (Rupees Twenty  thousand only) for the  mental agony and loss sustained  to the Complainant.
3. The Opposite Party is also  directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) as costs to the Complainant.

Needless to say that the above order is to be complied  with within 30 days of receipt  of the copy of the order otherwise  the Opposite Party will be liable to pay 6% interest  for the amount awarded as compensation from the date of order till date of realization.

Hence the Consumer Case is partly allowed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected   by   me  and  pronounced in the Open Commission on this the   23^rd  day of February 2023.

          Date of filing:22.07.2021.

                                                                             PRESIDENT:  Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER    :  Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1.          Muhasin Rashi.              Complainant.                                       

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1.        Manoj. P.                        Courier.

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1.    Receipt.  

A2.    Tracking  status of the Consignment No. KPT4085155.

A3.    e-mail  communication.

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

X1.    Copy of  Receipt.                    dt:20.04.2021.

X2.    Copy of Tacking Details.

                                                                                                PRESIDENT:   Sd/-

                                                                             MEMBER    :   Sd/-