1
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala
Dated this the 31st day of August, 2011
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President
: Smt.Preetha G Nair, Member
: Smt.Bhanumathi A.K. Member Date of filing:10/06/2011
CC.No.85/2011
Ratheesh.R,
S/o Rajan,
Cherode House, -Complainant
Ayilur (P0),
Karakkattuparambu,
Palakkad 678 510
(Party in person)
Vs
Prasad,
The Proprietor,
Fly King Courier Service, -Opposite party
Fathima Complex,
Opp.K.S.R.T.C,
Palakkad
(Party in person)
O R D E R
BY SMT. SEENA. H, PRESIDENT
Short case of the complaint is as follows:-
Complainant has sent application and connected documents for the examination for getting wireman licence through the opposite party courier service centre. The letter was addressed to Kerala State Electricity Licencing Board. The grievance of the complainant is that the courier which was sent on 10/03/2011 has reached the destination only on 04/04/2011. Since the application was received out of time, Kerala State Electricity Licencing Board officer has rejected the application and it was informed to the complainant. The complainant has lost the chance of writing examination that year. According to the complainant it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence complainant is entitled for a
2
compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only).
Opposite party contented that the cover was addressed to Kerala State Electricity Licencing Board, Kerala State Housing Board, Trivandrum. The consignment was delivered to Kerala State Housing Board on 14/03/2011 itself. Receipt of the cover by the Kerala State Housing Board will go on to show that the cover was delivered to the right addressee. Opposite party has no knowledge about the contents of the cover. Later Kerala State Housing Board has intimated to the office of the opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram that the letter was not pertaining to their office. The same was intimated from the Thiruvananthapuram office to the opposite party. In order to help the complainant it was again delivered to Kerala State Electricity Licensing Board. According to opposite party, the delay occurred was due to the fault on the part of the complainant in not writing the correct address of the addressee. Further contented that their liability is limited to Rs.100/- (Rupes One Hundred Only) for loss or damage to the consignment. Hence complainant is liable to the dismissed with cost.
Both parties filed chief affidavit. Ext.A1 to Ext.A3 marked on the side of the complainant and Ext.B1 to Ext.B3 marked on the side of the opposite party.
Issues for considerations are,
1. Whether there is any deficiecny is service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, What is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?
Issues I & II
Heard both parites and has gone through the evidence on record.
It is an admitted case that the complainant has entrusted the consignment for delivery to the opposite party courier service centre. In Ext.A1 consignment note, reciever address is seen as Kerala State Electricity Licencing Board and destination as Thiruvananthapuram. Ext.A2, the letter addressed to the complainant from Kerala State Electricity Licencing Board shows that his application for the examination was rejected as it was recieved out of time. Ext.B3 Delivery note shows that it was delivered to Kerala State Housing Board. Ext.A1 the consignment note, Ext.B1, the office manifest of the opposite party shows that it was addressed to Kerala State Electricity Licencing Board. Opposite party has not produced any evidence to show that cover
3
was addressed to Kerala State Housing Board. The stand of opposite party that receipt of the cover Kerala State Housing Board shows that it was delivered to the correct addressee is not all acceptable. The duty of the opposite party is to deliver the consignment to the addressee as stated by the complainant. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as compensation which we feel is on a higher side. We are of the view that an amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation will meet the ends of justice.
In the result complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with Rs.5,00/- (Rupees Five Hundred Only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of August, 2011
Sd/-
Smt. Seena H,
President
Sd/-
Smt. Preetha G Nair,
Member
Sd/-
Smt. Bhanumathi A K,
Member
A P P E N D I X
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1- Consignment Note issued by the opposite party dated 10/03/2011.
Ext.A2- Original of Chief Electrical Inspector's letter stating the rejection of examination dated
05/05/2011.
Ext.A3- Copy of letter issued by the Electrical Inspector, Palakkad.
4
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1- Copy of The Manifest of the opposite party courier service dated 10/03/2011.
Ext.B2- Copy of Delivery Runsheet of the opposite party.
Ext.B3- Opposite party's consignment note including the terms and conditions.
Witness examined on the side of the complainant
Nil.
Witness Examined on the side of the opposite party
Nil.
Cost allowed
Rs. 500/- (Rupees five Hundred Only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.
