Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

451/2007

S.Manjula - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Professional Couriers, - Opp.Party(s)

R.Sridhar

30 Nov 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   25.10.2007

                                                                        Date of Order :   30.11.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.451/2007

WEDNESDAY THIS  30^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

 

S.Manjula

C/o Ganeshan

7G, Suraj Tower,

128, Lattice Bridge Road,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai-41                                                           .. Complainant

                                               Vs

1. The Manager,

The Professional Couriers,

No.32, Thiru-vi-ka Road,

Royapettah,

Chennai-14

 

2. The Manager,

The Professional Couriers,

Thiruvanmiyur Branch,

No.30, L.B.Road,

Thiruvanmiyur

Chennai-41                                                         .. Opposite parties

 

 

Counsel for Complainant                  : M/s P.G.Thiyagu & R.Sridhar

Counsel for Opposite parties             : M/s S.Haja Mohideen Gisthi

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay total amount of Rs.66,050/- and also to pay the cost of the complaint.

1.  The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant on 11.05.2007, booked a consignment with the office of the 2^nd opposite party service center located at Tidel Park, which was affiliated to the 2^nd opposite party branch. The consignment booked by her is that of an electronic gadget namely a mobile phone bearing model No.(N-95) worth is about Rs.32,000/-. At the time of booking, the complainant asked the 2^nd opposite party that whether there is any impediment thereabout to consign the articles like mobile. But the officials of the 2^nd opposite party replied that there is no such barrier but receipt as to the purchase of article or proper invoice to be given in support and in addition to that the article should be shown to them before packing the same.

2.     That on direction given by the 2^nd opposite party, she had shown the article and produced the receipt given by the selling agent to the petitioner dated 10.05.2007, bearing S.No.(4891). After perusing the article and after comparing the same with the receipt produced by her, the 2^nd opposite party agreed to enter into a carriage contract with consignor by way of giving a challan for booking of consignment. While giving the receipt to the booking of consignment, the officials of the 2^nd opposite party made sure statement as to the delivery of the article within a time frame limit i.e. 3 days. The petitioner further states that she booked the consignment for the addressee namely V.Jayaprasad, S/o Vijayakumar, Vijaybhavan,p.c Kavala(post)Paippad, Chry(via)Kottayam, Karala. The officials of the 2^nd opposite party charged Rs.55/- for the consignment as a valid consideration and it was paid by the petitioner and received by the 2^nd opposite party for the execution of the transportation contract made between them vide the challan dated 11.5.2007 bearing No. 695159591 as issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

3.      The complainant had kept quiet for more than 5 days from the date of booking of consignment, for receiving the information as to the receipt of article from the addressee. But her patience turned in vain. Then she enquired the addressee through phone on 15.05.2007, about the receipt of article. To surprise and sock, he replied that no such article was received by him. Then she requested the addressee to enquire about the dispatch of consignment at the branch office at Kottayam. But the branch of the 1^st opposite party at Kottayam (Kerala) answered in negative.

4.       Having no other opinion, the complainant enquired the 2^nd opposite party for their non performance of carriage contract. But they replied with a new version that the consignment booked by her was handed over to the 1^st opposite party for handling through unique system of dispatch, being controlled and maintained by the 1^st opposite party. The booking chain and the dispatch chain between the branches maintained by the 1^st opposite party. Hence, the 2^nd opposite party replied that the answerable authority to the query of the petitioner is that of none other than the 1^st opposite party.

5.       The complainant was thrown out and constrained to approach the office of the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party admitted the defect of them and carried a coercive move to convince the complainant to set off the issue amicably by using criminal threats. The 1^st opposite party used filthy words and created mental agony and fear against the life of her.

6.          The 1^st opposite party once again tried to coerce the complainant by arriving at the complainant’s residence at afore mentioned address and insisted her to receive the cheque bearing No. 929273 dated 24.5.2007, for the amount of Rs.15950/- as a first payment as to the return back of value of the consignment without prejudice to her rights, she received the same and required the 1^st opposite party to make arrangements for remaining amount without fail and within a short span of time limit.

7.         After the receipt of the aforesaid amount, the 1^st opposite party insisted the complainant to sign the receipt made by them for the entire amount of article which she refused to do the same, she was threatened by the 1^st opposite party and intimidated her with criminal intention. Then the complainant issued a legal notice dated 16.8.2007 to the 2^nd opposite party and the service center affiliated to the 2^nd opposite party. The same had been returned by the postal department with an endorsement to the effect that is of ‘Refused’. Hence this complaint.

8. Written Version of  opposite parties is  in briefly as follows:

        The opposite parties denied all the allegations and averments contained in the complaint. The opposite parties are rendering service almost to all the countries to the utmost satisfaction of its customers. Further the complainant has booked the consignment on 11.5.2007, addressed to Jayaprasad Vijay Bhavoan, P.C.Kavala (Post), Patppud, Chery, Kottayam, Kerala State. At the time of booking of the consignment, the complainant had not disclosed neither the contents of the consignment or the value of the same. This is clearly evidence from the consignment booking note signed by the complainant.

9.        The complainant had understood fully and having accepted the same and her also had signed the consignment booking note. It is clearly mentioned in it that “Consignment are advised to insure parcels containing valuables” and “Our liability in case of any loss or damage shall not exceed Rs.100/-.” The averment that the complainant sent a valuable consignment is an invented one solely intended to make an illegal claim against the opposite parties. The subject cheque was issued to the complainant only, in consideration of the name and reputation of the opposite parties and the plea made by the complainant. It is not issued for any sort of compensation or claim as alleged. The subject cheque was issued only on account of goodwill.

10.        Having accepted the same, the complainant is stopped from making further claim. The complainant’s allegation and the demand are objectionable and devoid of any merits. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

11.         In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with his evidence and documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.11 marked. On the other hand, Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.6 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

12.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:  

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

    Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

13. Point No.1

         Regarding this point, on careful perusal of the averments in the complaint and proof affidavit submitted on the side of the complainant, it is learnt that the complainant booked an electronic gadget namely Nokia mobile phone model No.N-95 which worth is about Rs.32,000/-. On knowing that there is no such implement on the side of the opposite parties and for that Ex.A.1, cash receipt issued by the 2^nd opposite party for Rs.55/-, it is further learnt that after perusing the article and comparing the same with Ex.A.1, the 2^nd opposite party agreed to enter into the carriage contract to the consignor by way of booking of consignment. Furthermore, it is narrating by the complainant and even after 5 days from the date of booking of consignment on enquiry with addressee through phone, it was informed to the complainant that the product was not delivered and the same was confirmed by the 1^st opposite party and thereby the 2^nd opposite party has failed to perform the carriage contract. Therefore the complainant had issued the legal notice is marked as Ex.A.4. The same was returned the return cover is marked as Ex.A.5, thereafter the complainant again sent Ex.A.6, notice and the same also returned which is marked as Ex.A.7 and the acknowledgment of 1^st opposite party for receipt of the same marked as Ex.A.8. The reply notice of the 1^st opposite party is marked as Ex.A.9 and the rejoinder notice sent by the complainant is marked as Ex.A.10 and the acknowledgment of 1^st opposite party for the receipt of the same is marked as Ex.A.11.

14.        It is further learnt that one point of time, the opposite parties approached the complainant to give the cheque (Ex.A.3) for a sum of Rs.15,950/- as the 1^st payment and the same was received by the complainant. But the opposite parties failed to comply the demand of the complainant and to pay the remaining amount inspite of issuance of legal notice. Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

15.         On the other hand, the opposite parties vehemently contended the allegations of the complaint and stated that in fact, they are liability in cause of any damage in the article shall not exceed into Rs.100/- that also it informed already to the complainant during the time of booking of consignment. Even then the subject cheque (Ex.A.3) was issued only the consideration in the name reputation of the opposite parties and also on account of book bill, but not otherwise as alleged in the complaint therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

16.         At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put-forth on other side, it is crystal clear that the booking of the consignment in respect of alleged product by the complainant and the cost of the same are all admitted one. Moreover, the issuance of Ex.A.3, cheque for the part amount of Rs.15,950/- to the complainant by way of compensation. At the outset no explanation given by the opposite party that Ex.A.3, cheque was issued to the complainant only in the consideration of the name of the reputation of the opposite parties and on the account of the bill. Some other how the loss of the product as alleged that have been admitted on the same, most compensated by the opposite parties. Therefore, the admitted facts need not be further proved. So the plea taken by the opposite parties that the liability of the opposite parties in respect of any loss of damage of the consignment shall not exceed Rs.100/- has lost its merit, regarding this complaint on hand.

17.      Under the circumstances, it is pertinent to note that as per the averments in the complaint and Ex.A.2, purchased price of the alleged mobile is of Rs.31,900/- and the same is not at all disputed by the opposite parties. It is further to note that the opposite parties have given a cheque for a sum of Rs.15950/- which is marked as Ex.A.3. It is the part amount of the total cost price of the mobile phone. Therefore, the opposite parties are having bounden duty, atleast to pay the balance cost price of the mobile phone as per Ex.A.2 to the complainant. At the same time, regarding the deficiency of service if any on the part of the opposite parties, this Forum wants to enlighten that from the written version of the opposite parties, it is seen that the opposite parties having good intention to compensate the loss incurred to the complainant by the act of done and issued Ex.A.3. From this fact it goes without saying that there is no intentional act of committing deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. At the same time, as already pointed out, the opposite parties are liable atleast to pay the balance cost price of the mobile phone. Thus the Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

18. Point No.2:-

        As per the view concluded in point No.1, the complainant is only entitled for the balance amount of cost price of the mobile phone i.e., Rs.16,050/- with reasonable cost but there is no valuable reason for the award of compensation to the complainant. Thus the point No.2 is also answered accordingly.

       In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.16,050/- (Rupees Sixteen Thousand and Fifty only) towards the balance cost of the Nokia mobile phone bearing model No. N-95 along with the cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). Regarding the claim of compensation, this complaint is dismissed.

       The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 30^th day  of  November  2016.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-         11.05.2007           Copy of cash receipt issued by the 2^nd opposite

                                               Party

Ex.A.2                   10.05.2007           Copy of Purchase Receipt of Mobile

Ex.A.3                   24.05.2007           Copy of Cheque bearing No. 929273

Ex.A.4                   16.08.2007           Copy of Legal notice

Ex.A.5                   21.08.2007           Copy of Returned cover

Ex.A.6                   04.09.2007           Copy of Reminder notice to Respondents

Ex.A.7                   07.09.2007           Copy of Returned cover

Ex.A.8                   07.09.2007           Copy of Acknowledgement Card

Ex.A.9                   20.09.2007           Copy of Reply notice

Ex.A.10       06.10.2007           Copy of Rejoinder notice sent by the petitioner

Ex.A.11       10.10.2007           Copy of Acknowledgment card

Opposite parties side documents :

Ex.B.1         11.05.2007           Copy of Consignment receipts

Ex.B.2         16.05.2007           Copy of Complainant’s requisition letter

Ex.B.3         29.05.2007           Copy of cheque received by the complainant-

                                                Received

Ex.B.4         04.09.2007           Copy of Notice sent to the complainant counsel

Ex.B.5         07.09.2007           Copy of Reply notice sent to the opposite parties

Ex.B.6         20.09.2007           Copy of Legal notice sent to the opposite parties

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.