DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 31st day of May 2010 .
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.141/2009
Hemachandran.P S/o. K.P. Soudamini Amma Nirmalyam, Cherikkode Kakkayur Palakkad – 678 512. - Complainant ( Ad. C. Rekha ) V/s
1. The Professional Couriers Service Centre 2nd Floor, Kalyan Complex G B Road Palakkad [Rep. By Officer in charge] ( Adv. Rajesh.M)
2. The Professional Couriers District Administration and Operation Office Farsi Commercial Centre Chandra Nagar Palakkad . - Opposite parties [Rep. By Manager] (Adv. Rajesh.M)
O R D E R By Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member.
The complaint in short is as follows. The complainant claims compensation for the dereliction of the duty on the part of opposite parties. On 06/06/2009 one important article containing two fixed deposit receipts of Tata Motors Limited was despatched by Bajaj Capital Limites, S S Complex, first Floor, College Road, Near Head Post Office, Palakkad - 678 001 to the complainant which was received at opposite party's Koduvayur Centre on 09/06/2009 which is highly delayed. - 2 - On the said day the complainant received a telephone call from the said centre of the opposite parties asking the complainant to go and collect the article from the office. When the complainant informed the opposite parties centre that it was impossible for him to go there due to some unavoidable reasons, the tone and tenor in which the personnel there responded caught the complainant by surprise. The agents of the opposite parties refused to talk to the complainant and sent back the article to the sender. The complainant was astonished to hear from the agent of the opposite parties that the area where he resides does not come within the limit of there area of operation.
The same situation occurred on 26/06/2009 also. An article was despatched to the complainant through 1st opposite party by Messrs KARVY Stock Broking Ltd, 12/310, Metro Complex, Palakkad on 24/06/2009 which was highly important to the complainant. On 26/06/2009 the complainant was contacted by the opposite parties Koduvayur Centre and he was asked to take the article from the centre. When the complainant expressed his inability he was told that the delivery was not possible at his address and the same was returned to the sender. Hence this complaint, seeking an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony suffered by the complainant.
Opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. The first contention of the opposite party is there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite parties. Opposite party says that on 06/06/2009 Saturday, a consignment was booked with the 1st opposite party in the name of complainant. It was reached on Monday at Koduvayur branch of the opposite party and informed the complainant. The opposite parties have no service in Kakkayur, Cherikkode area. The opposite parties accepted the consignment on the expectation that the addressee will collect the same from Koduvayur where the opposite parties have service. Opposite parties have no responsibility to deliver the consignment wherever the address was given. And there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed their affidavit. Exhibits A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. No documentary evidence is adduced by the opposite parties. - 3 - Heard both parties. The issues to be considered are: Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? If so what is the relief and cost?
We have perused the available documents on record. It is the case of the complainant that he suffered mental agony and hardships due to the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. On 06/06/2009 one important article was despatched by Bajaj Capital Ltd by way of courier to the complainant's residential address which is located at Cherikkode, Kakkayoor. But the same was received at opposite party's Koduvayur centre, on 09/09/2009 which is highly delayed. On the said day the complainant received a telephone call from the centre of the opposite party asking the complainant to collect the consignment from the centre. When the complainant expressed his difficulty to collect the consignment they sent back the article to the sender. When we are availing a Courier service, we will be in the expectation that the article will be reaching home at the earliest. This complainant was also in the same expectation. As a beneficiary the complainant has filed this complaint.
Opposite parties in their version submitted that they have no service in the complainant's residential area. More over they alleged that the consignment was booked in the courier centre on Saturday 06/06/2009 and Monday itself the article reached at Koduvayur centre. Opposite party says that the consignee did not raise any objection for returning the articles to the consignee as they were well aware about the terms in which the cover is accepted by the opposite parties. But all these contentions have no documentary support. If they have no service in the particular area, they could have refused to accept the courier at the initial stage itself. If they accepted the article it is their duty to deliver it to the addressee. It is admitted by the complainant that he was requested over phone to come and collect the consignment from the opposite party centre. But the complainant expressed his inability to come and collect. Hence it is seen that complainant has also contributed to the mental agony suffered. - 4 - In the result we partly allow the complaint. The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Order to be complied within one month from the date of order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of May, 2010.
PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD)
APPENDIX Date of filing: 20/10/2009 Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 – Lawyer notice dated 28/07/2009 Ext. A2 – Copy of acknowledgement cards Ext. A 3 – Copy of acknowledgement cards Ext. A4 - Copy of Lawyer notice dated 10/09/2008
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party Nil Forums Exhibits Nil Costs Partly allowed
| | HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member | HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member | | 
