Date of filing :  08-08-2008

                                                                                                Date of order :  15-10-2009

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                                C.C. 92/09

                         Dated this, the 15^th   day of   October 2009.

PRESENT

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                                         : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                                    : MEMBER

SMT.P.P.SHYMALADEVI                          : MEMBER

SHAH.B.S,

Rajarajeshwara housing complex,            } Complainant

Cheemeni, Cheemeni.Po,

Kasaragod.Dt.

(In Person)

The Professional Couriers,

City Centre, Opp: Telephone Exchange, } Opposite party

Near Bus Stand, Nileshwar. 671314.

(Adv. Santhosh Thomas, Hosdurg)

                                                                        O R D E R

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT

            In nutshell the case of the complainant is that the consignment he sent through opposite party is delivered to a wrong addressee and as a result the consignee lost the valuable things worth Rs.9000/-.  Hence the complaint claiming a compensation of Rs.20,000/-

2.            According to opposite party the complaint is false and as per their enquiry the consignment was delivered in good condition to the addressee.  The further contention of opposite party is that if the complainant got any grievances against the wrong delivery etc he has to move against the delivery center at Venjaramoodu, since the opposite party has no control over the franchisees of other districts and their jurisdiction is confined to Kasaragod District only.

3.            Complainant examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 marked.  Opposite party adduced evidence as DW1 and Ext B1 marked.

4.         The case of the complainant is that the consignment sent by him through opposite party is not delivered to the consignee and it was delivered in an incorrect address.  As a result he lost valuable parts of a mobile phone worth Rs.9000/-.  The bill of the said articles purchased was also enclosed in the cover sent through opposite party.  During cross-examination PW1 has deposed that the cover contain parts of a mobile phone and at the time of entrusting the consignment with opposite party, they never told him that the consignment has to be insured and there should be a declaration about the contents of the consignment.  He also deposed that the parcel was later delivered to the consignee in an open condition with all the valuable spare parts of the mobile phone missing.  According to him only the head phone and data cable alone is received by his friend, the consignee.

5.         The contention of opposite party that the consignment was delivered to the consignee in good condition is not acceptable.  No proof of Delivery (POD) is produced to substantiate their contentions that the consignment is delivered to the consignee in good condition.  The further contention that  the collection center of Venjaramoodu has to be made as an opposite party if there is any grievance of wrong delivery is also not hold good on several reasons.  First of all the complainant has no privity of contract with them. Secondly there is no consumer relationship with them since no service is hired by the complainant from them.   Thirdly the complainant entrusted the consignment with opposite party and paid consideration not to keep it with him in his jurisdiction but to deliver it to the consignee at Thiruvananthapuram.  The service hired from opposite party was the transit of the consignment to the consignee.  Therefore the service became complete only if the consignment reaches at its true and correct goal in good condition.  During the  transit process it may be passing through several agencies and that is a matter  of concern of opposite party and not that of the complainant. The complainant is not required to bring all those agencies in the party array.  The non-delivery of the consignment to the consignee is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

6.            Reliefs& Costs

            There is no document to show the value of the goods lost due to the deficiency in service of opposite party.  According to complainant the purchase price of the spare parts of the mobile phone was worth Rs.9000/-. The bill for the purchase of spare parts were also enclosed in the cover sent through opposite party.  The recent  advanced  versions of  mobile phones  worth several thousands of rupees.  Hence it cannot be said that the purchase price of the spare parts claimed by the complainant is on higher side.

7.            Moreover considering the mental agony also suffered by the complainant due to the loss of the mobile phone spare parts we hereby deliver the following order.

            The complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to pay Rs.9000/- to the complainant along with a cost of Rs.1000/-.  Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  Failing which the opposite party shall pay interest @ 9% for Rs.9000/- from the date of complaint till payment.  Had the opposite party got a  grievance  that it is the collection center of Professional Couriers Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram  committed  wrong in the delivery of the consignment  then the opposite party can recover the aforementioned amount from them  through appropriate legal proceedings after paying the amount to the complainant.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Exts.

A1.28-01-09 Receipt issued by opposite party.

B1. 5-2-09 letter issued by complainant to opposite party.

PW1. Shah.B.S.

DW1.Sajithkumar.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT

Pj/