D.O.F:10/08/2020
D.O.O:31/05/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.89/2020
Dated this, the 31stday of May 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
K.C. Mammen, 68 years
S/o. Cheriyan,
Residing at Krichithanam
Shankarampady –P.O
Chengala, Kasaragod – 671541 : Complainant
(Adv: T.C. Narayanan)
And
The Proffessional Couries,
Old Bus Stand,
Kasaragod. 671121
Represented by its Owner) : Opposite Party
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that he booked a consignment with the Opposite Party courier service by paying Rs.60/- opposite Party promised delivery to the addressee on or before 12/02/2020 namely Mrs.NijithSudheesh W/o Sudheesh, Shalath Lay out road near Sree Narayana Guru Temple, Mylasandra, Bangalore 560008. But articles did not reach addressee nor delivered or returned back to the sender. The Opposite Party did not offer any explanation thereby alleging deficiency in service negligence from Opposite Party caused mental tension monitory loss and claimed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- besides litigation cost.
2. The Opposite Party filed its written version. The Opposite Party admitted that complainant booked documents weighing 300 grams from Opposite Party office and received Rs.60/- as charges on 11/02/2020 for delivery on 12/02/2020.
On dispatched the cover to the addressee without delay that cover is received next day at Banglore Office of Opposite Party on 12/02/2020. But delivery boy could not locate addressee, attempt to contact through telephone also failed, cover is returned to Kasaragod on 06/03/2020 delivered back to Opposite Party on 07/03/2020. The Complainant did not approach the Opposite Party for the cover. There is no deficiency in service that complainant is not entitled to any compensation that complainant may be dismissed with costs. The Opposite Party produced un delivered cover.
The Complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as PW1, Ext.A1 receipt marked. The Opposite Party produced Ext.B1 returned article as evidence.
Now short question for consideration is –
- Whether there is any deficiency in service from the Opposite Party and whether Complainant is entitled for compensation and if so for what reliefs?
3. The Complainant relates to allegation on non-delivery of the article sent through Opposite Party, and it is not delivered to Opposite Party. The Opposite Party states that they could not trace out the addressee. The complainant admits that the Ext.B1 is the cover dispatched by him. Suggestion is made that complainant purposefully did not accept returned cover. Even during cross examination the Opposite Party has no case that they made all attempts to deliver the cover to the addressee or despite their effort Opposite Party failed to deliver the same or finally attempted to return the article back to the Complainant.
4. The Opposite Party though filed chief affidavit did not appear for cross examination by the Complainant in spite of several postings and opportunities are given. But documents are marked as Ext.B1
5. In Ext.B1 name of the sender is shown as K.C.Maman but in Ext.A1 issued by Opposite Party is written as Hameed, absolutely no connection with complainant who is sender in the case. If not able to locate the addressee no reason why Opposite party did not contact Complainant via mobile number shown in Ext.B1. All entries in the B1 are of first week of March 2021. Where there is promised delivery is on 3/02/2020. No evidence by Opposite Party why they could not return cover to the complainant who is available in particular mobile number provided.
6. There is no reason as to why Opposite Party did not appear for cross examination after filing its chief affidavit. The Opposite Party has got a case that the Complainant and the Opposite Party are hands in glove with each other and joined to create a false story inconvenience with addressee to create a false cause of action and further says it is outside the delivery area. No definite case for Opposite Party why it is not delivered or why not returned to sender. In any event there is no valid justifiable reason for non-delivery of cover and non-return to the Complainant in case of non-delivery.
7. The Complainant’s in cases like, there really suffer mental tension, agony and much more not even expressing an unconditional apology by rather sticking to their stand there is no deficiency in service in their services but admits cover is not delivered nor returned to consumer.
8. For reason aforesaid Commission holds that there is serious deficiency in service from the Opposite Party, Opposite Party is very negligent in the matter. Ext.A1 does not mention tracking number, Ext B1 also does not contain tracking number or endorsement from Bangalore being the destination.
9. Regarding quantom of compensation there is no direct evidence for financial loss or other heads. But since misleading and false information is evident from the fact that the Opposite Party did not deliver the cover to the addressee really put the Complainant in mental tension; Commission finds that under the circumstances of the case a sum of Rs.10,000/- is reasonable compensation with liability to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.
10. In the case complaint is allowed in part Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for deficiency in service and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) for cost of litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits :
A1- Receipt
B1- Cover
Witness Examined
Pw1- K.C Mamman
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMEBR MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
