Date of filing: 08.11.2019
Date of disposal : 13.02.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L., ....MEMBER-II
RBT/CC. No.145/2022
THIS MONDAY, THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
(CC.No.147/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)
Mr.P.Chandrasekaran,
Mr.T.Sundaramurthy,
Advocates,
Having office at
No.428, New Additional Law Chambers,
High Court Buildings, Chennai 600 104. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Professional Couriers,
Rep. by its Manager,
New No.19 &20, Mooker Nalla Muthu Street,
Parrys, Chennai – 600 001.
2.The Professional Couriers,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
The Corporate Office,
No.17, Cathedral Garden Road,
Nungambakkam, Chennai -600 034.
3.The Professional Couriers,
Rep. by its General Manager,
No.32, Thiru-ve-ka Salai,
Royapettah, Chennai 600 014. .......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. Anirudh B Menon, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : M/s.R.Sathyanarayanan, Advocate.
This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.147/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.145/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.11.2022 in the presence of M/s. Anirudh B Menon, Advocate counsel for complainant and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in delivery of the consignment booked by the complainant with delay along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceeding to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
Complainant booked one courier from the 1st opposite party’s office vide consignment No. MAA548798229 which was addressed to Mr.P.BharathiRaja, Advocate, Bar Association, Kancheepuram.The courier contains court filing papers which was supposed to be delivered on the very next day i.e. 08.01.2019 but it was not delivered on 08.01.2019. Complainant checked and enquired about the non-delivery of consignment in opposite party’s office, and the opposite party replied that it would reach definitely on 09.01.2019 thereafter the complainant waited and enquired the addressee on 09.01.2019 for which he replied that consignment was not delivered to the addressee on that day also. Consignment was not delivered to the concerned addressee on 10.01.2019 also. It was submitted that regarding the consignment the complainant again enquired with the opposite party’s office on 11.01.2019 and the opposite party’s office staff checked about delivery status and informed that the consignment was delivered at Sriperumpudur on 11.01.2019 at 13.32hours. Hearing this the complainant got shock and surprise that the consignment was delivered to a wrong address after four days of inordinate delay. In the ‘To’ Address column the complainant never mentioned the name of Sriperumpudur or PIN code of Sriperumpudur, but the consignment was delivered to wrong address at Sriperumpudur. The delivery of the consignment to the wrong address was an act of negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties. On 11.01.2019 around 04.20pm the above said consignment was received by the Addressee, which the consignment was supposed to be received on 08.01.2019. Due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, complainants was not able to present the case file in the filing hours that was closed at 3.00pm on 11.01.2019. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceeding to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-
Opposite parties admitting the factum of transaction/booking and also regretted by accepting the delay in delivery of the consignment booked by the complainant but stated that the same was neither wilful nor wanton. Opposite parties accepted the mishap vide their letter dated 20.03.2019 addressed to the complainant wherein the entire facts have been properly stated. The opposite parties strongly believed that unless a service provider admits their mistake they cannot improve thereafter. Even the complainant enclosed the above said letter dated 20.03.2019 along with the complaint. Only contention of the opposite parties was that at the time of booking the complainant never declared the contents or the importance of the same at the time of booking. Likewise, there was no instructions to insure the consignment. Because of the delay the complainant has not suffered any loss, such as not able to file within the period of limitation etc. and when that being the circumstances the compensation claimed by the complainant of Rs.5,25 lakh appears to be arbitrary, imaginary, illogic and just wants to punish this opposite parties which is not proportionate to the fault committed by them and they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A4. On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was filed but no documents were file on their side.
Points for consideration:
Whether the delayed delivery of the consignment booked by the complainant by the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1&2:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;
Consignment booking receipt issued by the opposite party dated 07.01.2019 was marked as Ex.A1;
Track Report of the consignment was marked as Ex.A2;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 & 2 dated 05.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A3;
Reply notice of the 3rd opposite party dated 20.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;
The crux of the written arguments filed by the complainant is that he had booked consignment consisting of case papers to be filed before Kancheepurm court as it did not reach in time and got delivered with a delay of nearly 3 days he could not present the papers before the court in time. Thus he sought for complaint to be allowed as prayed for.
On the other hand, the crux of the written arguments filed by the opposite parties stated that they admit the factum of booking of consignment and delay in delivery. However, they state that the delay is neither wilful nor wanton and it is stated by them that the complainant had not declared what is present inside the consignment at the time of booking the courier. In such circumstances it is submitted that the compensation sought by the complainant was an exorbitant amount and could not be awarded.
On appreciation of the pleadings and material evidences of both parties we are of the view that merely for the reason that the opposite parties had admitted their fault they could not be exonerated from their liability to pay any compensation to the affected party. The complainant being an Advocate and the consignee is also an Advocate, the contention of the complainant that he had sent case papers to be filed before the kancheepuram Court and due to the delay the same could not be filed in time assumes importance and cannot be brushed aside. Thus in the facts and circumstances we award a nominal compensation of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the complainant. Further the compensation was awarded to imply that the opposite parties being a carrier has responsible to deliver the consignment booked with them with reasonable care. Delivery of the consignment to wrong address which is no way related to the consignee‘s address is a clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Thus we answer the point holding that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and they are also liable to be compensation to the complainant. Thus the points No.1 & 2 answered accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severely directed
a) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainants within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainants.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 13th day of February 2023.
SD/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 07.01.2019 Consignment booking Receipt MAA548798229 from Chennai to Kancheepuram. Xerox
Ex.A2 ............... Track Report of the consignment. Xerox
Ex.A3 05.03.2019 Legal notice issed by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 & 2. Xerox
Ex.A4 20.03.2019 Reply by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:- -Nil-
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
