IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 242/2011 (Filed on 23.12.2011)
Between:
Kamalasanan,
Chooravelil Veedu,
Nellickappara P.O.,
Kokkathodu,
Aruvappulam Village,
Kozhencherry Taluk. … Complainant.
(By Adv. Shilu Muraleedharan)
And:
The Proprietor,
Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd.,
SPM Building,
Thykkavu, Pathanamthitta. … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. Manoj Kumar)
ORDER
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is as follows: Complainant’s daughter Anitha is working at Ahammedabad. Opposite party is the Proprietor of Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd., Pathanamthitta. On 15.03.2010, complainant sent a parcel of food items containing chips, pickles, fried nuts etc. to her daughter through the opposite party’s courier service. The opposite party charged Rs. 660 as courier charge. The parcel was not delivered to the addressee. On several occasions, the complainant enquired about the non-delivery of the parcel to the opposite party. But opposite party embarrassed the complainant by saying false things about the delivery of consignment. Since the parcel was sent on 15.03.2010, even if it is found and delivered, it cannot be useful to the consignee because it contains perishable food items. The cost of the products sent is Rs. 2,000.
3. Complainant sent legal notice to opposite party on 07.12.2011. But opposite party did not give any reply though he received the notice. The act of the opposite party is deficiency of service, which caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint for getting the price of the parcel items of Rs. 2,000 and parcel charges of Rs. 660 along with compensation of Rs. 50,000 and cost.
4. The opposite party entered appearance and filed version with the following contentions. He admitted that complainant sent a parcel through their courier service. But opposite party’s contention is that they had delivered the consignment to the consignee through their Ahammedabad office. Complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. As per Sec. 10 of Law of Carriage, the complainant should sent notice in writing of the loss or damage to the opposite party within 6 months before the institution of the suit.
5. The daughter of the complainant had already received the parcel. As the parcel contained perishable food items, the complaint is filed only after an elapse of almost a period of 2 years. As per the terms of contract, the complainant has to report the non-receipt of the parcel within 6 months from date of booking of parcel. Complainant did not made any complaint within that period. There is no circumstance which leads to cause any loss or mental agony to the complainant. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 and A2 series. Opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in spite of adjournments given to them. But they cross examined PW1. After closure of evidence, complainant alone was heard as there is no representation for opposite party.
8. The Point: Complainant’s allegation is that he had sent a parcel of food items worth Rs. 2,000 to her daughter on 15.03.2010 to Ahammedabad through the courier service of opposite party. But the parcel items were not delivered to the consignee. On several occasions, complainant approached the opposite party. But he had not taken any earnest steps for redressing the complainant’s grievances. The act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. Hence the opposite party is liable to the complainant for the mental agony and financial loss sustained to him. Therefore, the complainant filed this complaint for getting the amount of Rs. 2,000 which he spent for the purchase of the products and for realizing the courier charge of Rs. 660 along with compensation and cost.
9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts. A1 and A2 series. Ext. A1 is the courier charge bill dated 15.03.2010 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A2 is the copy of legal notice sent by the complainant. Ext. A2(a) is the postal receipt dated 07.12.2011. Ext. A2(b) is the postal acknowledgment card dated 08.12.2011. Opposite party’s counsel cross examined the complainant.
10. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite party is that the daughter of the complainant had already received the parcel. As per the terms of the contract, the complainant has to report the non-receipt of the parcel within 6 months from the date of booking of parcel. But the complainant did not file any complaint within that period. The complainant is not entitled for any compensation as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost of the opposite party. But opposite party neither gives any oral evidence nor produced any documentary evidence in their favour.
11. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available evidence. There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant had entrusted a parcel to the opposite party for delivering it to complainant’s daughter at Ahammedabad. The only dispute is whether it is delivered to the addressee or not?. As per Ext. A1, on 15.03.2010 complainant sent a parcel having the weight of 5-500Kg. through Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence to show that it is delivered to the consignee. The onus to prove that the parcel has been duly delivered to the consignee is upon the opposite party. If it is delivered, they ought to have produced the POD which was obtained from the consignee. It is also pertinent to note that even after receiving the legal notice stating the non-delivery of the consignment, opposite party never made any reply to that notice. Opposite party’s silence to the notice is also make the circumstances more doubtful.
12. In our view, no documents or proof has been placed on record to prove that the said parcel was delivered to the consignee. If the parcel was delivered to the addressee, there must be delivery note which contains the signature of the person who received the parcel. Opposite party’s firm is a courier service which collects the parcel from the customers and delivers it to the specified address and they charge a specified amount of money for the service provided by them. If the courier or the parcel is not delivered at the given address, the act of the opposite party would certainly amounts to deficiency in service. There is cogent and convincing evidence on record to prove that there is gross negligence on the part of the opposite party. Since they failed to deliver the articles to the addressee, this complaint is allowable.
13. In the result, this complaint is allowed, thereby the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only) the cost of the products lost along with Rs. 660 (Rupees Six hundred and sixty only) the parcel charge and compensation of Rs. 2,000 (Rupees Two thousand only) and cost of Rs. 500 (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to realize the whole amount with 9% interest per annum from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 13th day of June, 2012.
(Sd/-)
K.P. Padmasree, (Member)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Sri. N.Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Kamalasanan.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Courier charge bill for Rs. 660 dated 15.03.2010 issued by the opposite party to
the complainant.
A2 : Copy of legal notice dated 06.12.2011 sent by the complainant to the opposite party. A2(a) : Postal receipt of Ext. A2.
A2(b) : Postal acknowledgment card of Ext. A2.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Kamalasanan, Chooravelil Veedu, Nellickappara P.O., Kokkathodu,
Aruvappulam Village, Kozhencherry Taluk. (2) The Proprietor, Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd., SPM Building,
Thykkavu, Pathanamthitta.
(3) The Stock File.
