Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/14/2014

C. Bharathi W/o. C.Srinivasulu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Professional Couriers - Opp.Party(s)

S.D.Hussain and S.Naseema

31 Oct 2014

ORDER

Filing Date:18.03.2014

Order Date: 31.10.2014

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

     PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN

 

C.C.No.14/2014

 

Between

 

C.Bharathi,

W/o. C.Srinivasulu,

D.No.5-209, M.R.Palli,

Tirupati.                                                                                             … Complainant

 

And

 

The Professional Courier,

D.No.14-2-158A, T.P.Area,

Tirupati.                                                                                             …  Opposite party.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 17.10.14 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.S.D.Hussain, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the opposite party, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY T.ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This is a complaint filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, claiming compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency of service as the opposite party failed to deliver the invitation cards.

2.  The case of the complainant is that:-  On 22.01.2014, the complainant approached the opposite party for delivering the invitation cards to the relatives and friends for their “new house warming function” held on 06.02.2014 through the opposite party courier service under the consignments 1) Madhu – Chennai, (C.No.TPT 213943 dated 22.01.2014),  2) Bhanu Prasanth – Tandur (C.No.TPT 213944 dated 22.01.2014),   3) G.Tirumala – Edigapalli, Irala (C.No.213942 dated 22.01.2014),  4) Mahendra – Pakala, Chittoor District (C.No.TPT 213940 dated 22.01.2014) and paid Rs.20/- for each consignment. The complainant further submits that she came to know by the relatives and friends that they have not received any courier bearing the invitation and hence they could not attend the function held on 06.02.2014. Due to inaction of the opposite party, the complainant’s friends and relatives misunderstood her that she intentionally not invited them to the function. After receiving the said information, the complainant approached the opposite party to know the status, but the opposite party never gave any proper reply to the complainant. Hence, the complainant issued legal notice on 22.02.2014 calling upon the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- as they failed to render their best services to the complainant. The same was received by the opposite party but they could not gave any reply to the said notice. Hence, the complainant filed the present complaint praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony suffered and also to pay litigation expenses.

3.  The opposite party came into appearance and filed their written version and admitted that the complainant booked the consignment with four (4) covers on 22.01.2014 addressed to the following persons

S.No.	Date of Booking	Address	Amount Paid
1.	22.01.2014 – TPT 213940	Mahendra, Yallampalli Village Chengampalli Post Pakala Mandal	Rs.20-00
2.	22.01.2014 – TPT 213942	G.Tirumala S/o. Ramakrishnaiah Edigapalli Village, Ilavaripalli post, Irala Mandal	Rs.20-00
3.	22.01.2014 – TPT 213943	Madhu, 15/2, Appar Street, Vivekananda Nagar, Chennai.	Rs.20-00
4.	22.01.2014 – TPT 213944	Bhanu Prasanth Goud K.Srikanth C/o. A.Devendra Reddy 2-2-143/K4, Near Vinayaka Temple Thulasi Nagar, Tandur village, Rangareddy District	Rs.20-00

      

and also contended that due to want of full particulars, the consignment covers could not be delivered to the persons mentioned therein. The covers under item Nos.1 and 2 were returned on 24.01.2014 and 25.01.2014 respectively. This was intimated to the complainant on 27.01.2014, but the complainant failed to receive the covers to furnish the correct address with land mark place. The cover under item No.3 was also returned on 28.01.2014 as no such door number at the said address. The cover under item No.4 returned on 29.01.2014 as the addressee could not be located and the same was intimated to the complainant on 29.01.2014, but the complainant failed to receive the same to take further action and also contended that as per the terms and conditions of the courier service, it is binding on the parties that liability in case of any loss or damage shall not exceed Rs.100/-, no claim will be entertained after lapse of 30 days, consequential damages are calculated either for direct or indirect loss. In this particular case it is only after lapse of 30 days, the legal notice was issued for which the required information could not furnished and also contended that the opposite party never intended to cause damage as alleged by the complainant by not delivering the invitation to the addressee, but it is for want of full particulars and also stated that the complainant failed to furnish the mobile numbers of the said addressee in the covers and also stated that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.  The complainant filed the evidence on affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the opposite party one Mr.C.Hemadri, Manager of Professional Courier Service, filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B5. Heard both sides.

5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i)  Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?

(ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

(iii) To what result?

6.  Point No.(i):-  There is no dispute with regard to booking of the consignment by the complainant, with the opposite party courier service, for delivery of invitation cards for her “House Warming Function”, as the same was admitted by the opposite party. As per the contention of the complainant that the opposite party failed to deliver all the 4 consignments booked by her or the same was returned back to the complainant despite the fact that the mobile numbers of the complainant was mentioned on the same. It was stated that the opposite party never bothered to return the covers to the complainant and also stated that due to inaction of the opposite party in time, she faced so many problems with her relatives, that they misunderstood her for not inviting them to the function. In return the counsel for opposite party argued that the consignments booked by the complainant were returned back for want of correct address and it was stated that they informed the same to the complainant. But the complainant failed to turn-up to furnish the correct address. Due to the inaction of the complainant only, the opposite party could not deliver the consignments and hence there are no latches on their part. If such is the case, the complainant might have taken steps to send invitation through other modes of service but in this particular case, the opposite party failed to place any evidence that they informed the complainant prior to the function about the return of the covers, in order to support their contention, they failed to place any evidence to prove the same. Hence without any supportive evidence, it cannot be considered. Hence, this argument has no force. It is clearly stated that the complainant proved the deficiency of service and accordingly this point is answered in favour of the complainant.

8.  Point No.(ii):-   No doubt the complainant had an option of inviting the relatives through mobile service to her function, but that itself will not totally escape the opposite party from the contractual liability having undertaken to deliver the consignment by collecting charges. The sole contention of the opposite party is that as per the terms and conditions of the courier service, the liability in case of any loss or damage is restricted to Rs.100/- only and also no claim can be entertained after lapse of 30 days. In this connection, the counsel for the opposite party draws attention to the decision of National Commission in Desk to Desk Courier and Cargo Vs. Kerala state Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. – F.A.No.42/1996 dt:17.02.2004, - “it is held that Person signing contractual document bound by its terms even if he had not read it or was ignorant of the terms – Liability being limited to Rs.100 as per contract respondent entitled to only Rs.100”.  But in the present case, this is a case of specific breach of contract of inability to deliver the consignment in time by collecting charges of Rs.20/- for each consignment, which were booked by the complainant. However, failed to comply the same, contending that the claim is restricted to only Rs.100/- in each case, appears to be nothing but false inducement and it is also amounts to unfair trade practice. At any rate, this Forum already reached the conclusion about deficiency of service and need not be discussed once again. How the complainant assessed the value of Rs.20,000/- also not made known, but at the same time the contention of the opposite party that they would give only Rs.100/- irrespective of breach of contract could not be accepted and awarding such nominal compensation would be nothing but sought of encouraging such practice. At the same time, we cannot also promote the complainant to take advantage and have gain without actual proof of damages. In the above circumstances, this Forum feels that a sum of Rs.3,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date complaint, till realization, would be quite adequate compensation and another sum of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

9.  Point No.(iii):-  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards compensation with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 18.03.2014, till the realization and another sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of the litigation to the complainant, within six (6) weeks from the date of this order.  

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 31^st day of October, 2014.

      Sd/-                                                                                                                    Sd/-                           

Lady Member                                                                                                    President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

PW-1: Smt C.Bharathi W/o. C.Srinivasulu (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-1: Sri  C.Hemadri S/o.Bhaskar Naidu  (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.A1	06.02.2014	Invitation Card
2	22.01.2014	Consignment Order bearing No.TPT 213940.
3	22.01.2014	Consignment Order bearing No.TPT 213942.
4	22.01.2014	Consignment Order bearing No.TPT 213943.
5	22.01.2014	Consignment Order bearing No.TPT 213944.
6	22.02.2014	Office copy of Legal notice along with postal receipts.
7	24.02.2014	Acknowledgement Card

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

Exhibits	Date	Description of Documents
Ex.B1	22.01.2014	Consignment No. 213940 addressed to Mahendra, Yallampalli, Pakala Mandal .
2	22.01.2014	Consignment No. 213942 addressed to G.Tirumala,Edigapalli,Irala Mandal.
3	22.01.2014	Consignment No. 213943 addressed to Madhu,Chennai.
4	22.01.2014	Consignment No. 213944 addressed to Bhanu Prasanth Goud,Thanduru Village,R.R.District.
5		Copy of Terms and Conditions of Courier Service.

           

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                            President

 

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                                               Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.    

  

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite party.