Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

398/2003

Lalithamma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

J. Kamalamma

31 Oct 2009

ORDER


Thiruvananthapuram
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Vazhuthacaud
consumer case(CC) No. 398/2003

Lalithamma 		...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The MD
The Proprietor 		...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

 

O.P. No: 398/2003 Filed on 1/10/2003

Dated : 31..10..2009


 

Complainant:

Lalithamma, Lalithasree, House No.220, Pongumoodu, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 11.

(J. Kamalamma & A.S. Anilkumar)


 

Opposite parties:

      1. The Proprietor, V.K. Communication, Vadayakkadu, Kannammoola, Thiruvananthapuram – 37.

         

        (By Adv. Konniyoor S. Harichandran)

         

      2. The Managing Director, Blaze Flash Couriers Pvt. Ltd., Near Sivasakthi Kalyanamandapam, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

         

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 11..05..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 22..09..2009, the Forum on 31..10..2009 delivered the following:


 

ORDER


 

SMT.S.K. SREELA, MEMBER:


 

The complaint in brief is as follows: On 20/2/2003, the complainant had entrusted a parcel containing 4 yantras and 100 years of panchangam worth Rs.5,000/- to the 1st opposite party to send to her son who is working in Behrain and the complainant paid Rs.2,100/- as service charges. The 1st opposite party is working as the authorised Fanchisee of the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party after receiving the parcel issued a receipt to the complainant to that effect. At the time of acceptance, the 1st opposite party had assured the complainant that the parcel will be delivered to the addressee within one week. As the parcel was not delivered to the addressee, the complainant approached the opposite parties but they refused to repay the amount and hence this complaint has been necessitated.

2. The 1st opposite party has filed their version denying the entire allegations levelled against them. The 1st opposite party contends that they do not know the complainant and has not received any parcel from her as alleged in the complaint. That it is true that the complainant had sent an advocate notice, but as the 1st opposite party had no transaction with the complainant as alleged no reply was send. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint as against this opposite party with compensatory cost.

3. The 2nd opposite party remains ex-parte.

4. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 & P2. Opposite parties had no evidence.

5. From the contentions made by the complainant, the points to be decided are:

      1. Whether there is any deficiency in service?

      2. If the above is in affirmative, then by whom, opposite party 1 or 2 or both the opposite parties?

      3. Reliefs and costs?

6. Points (i) to (iii): The grievance of the complainant is that, the parcel containing 4 yantras and 100 years of Panchangam has not been delivered to the complainant's son. Ext.P1 courier consignment note goes to prove that a consignment has been sent by the complainant on payment of Rs.2,100/- towards service charges. The date of booking the consignment has not been mentioned in Ext.P1. Ext.P1courier consignment note, containing the terms and conditions of the contract has not been signed by the consignor. Complainant alleges that, it has not yet reached the destination. The complainant further has alleged that, she had entrusted the parcel with the 1st opposite party who is the franchisee of the 2nd opposite party. We have carefully perused Ext.P1, wherein only the name of the 2nd opposite party is mentioned. There is no mentioning of 1st opposite party in Ext.P1. From Ext.P1 it could not be made out that it has been issued by the 1st opposite party as it does not bear either the seal or any details to come to a conclusion that Ext.P1 has been issued by 1st opposite party, who is alleged to be the franchisee of the 2nd opposite party.

7. From the above, we conclude that, the complainant has failed to establish, with cogent evidence, any deficiency in service and transaction with the 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party has not appeared before the Forum and not contested the matter. As such the allegations levelled against them stand unchallenged. Hence we find that the 2nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to her.


 

8. The contents of the parcel are not revealed by the complainant, as per Ext.P1. Since the 2nd opposite party has not contested the case or denied the same, we also do not want to take a view against that. Hence we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.2,100/- along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- from the 2nd opposite party.


 

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The 2nd opposite party shall refund Rs.2,100/- along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and costs of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% till realisation. The 1st opposite party is exempted from any liability.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 31st day of October, 2009.


 


 

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.


 


 

 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.


 


 


 

BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.


 


 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

O.P.No.398/2003


 

APPENDIX


 

I. Complainant's witness : NIL


 

II. Complainant's documents:

 

P1 : Receipt No.1456179.


 

P2 : Copy of Advocate notice dated 7/5/2003.


 

  1. Opposite parties' witness : NIL


 

  1. Opposite parties' documents : NIL


 


 


 


 


 

PRESIDENT


 

ad. 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

 

O.P. No: 398/2003 Filed on 1/10/2003

Dated : 31..10..2009


 

Complainant:

Lalithamma, Lalithasree, House No.220, Pongumoodu, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 11.

(J. Kamalamma & A.S. Anilkumar)


 

Opposite parties:

      1. The Proprietor, V.K. Communication, Vadayakkadu, Kannammoola, Thiruvananthapuram – 37.

         

        (By Adv. Konniyoor S. Harichandran)

         

      2. The Managing Director, Blaze Flash Couriers Pvt. Ltd., Near Sivasakthi Kalyanamandapam, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

         

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 11..05..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 22..09..2009, the Forum on 31..10..2009 delivered the following:


 

ORDER


 

SMT.S.K. SREELA, MEMBER:


 

The complaint in brief is as follows: On 20/2/2003, the complainant had entrusted a parcel containing 4 yantras and 100 years of panchangam worth Rs.5,000/- to the 1st opposite party to send to her son who is working in Behrain and the complainant paid Rs.2,100/- as service charges. The 1st opposite party is working as the authorised Fanchisee of the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party after receiving the parcel issued a receipt to the complainant to that effect. At the time of acceptance, the 1st opposite party had assured the complainant that the parcel will be delivered to the addressee within one week. As the parcel was not delivered to the addressee, the complainant approached the opposite parties but they refused to repay the amount and hence this complaint has been necessitated.

2. The 1st opposite party has filed their version denying the entire allegations levelled against them. The 1st opposite party contends that they do not know the complainant and has not received any parcel from her as alleged in the complaint. That it is true that the complainant had sent an advocate notice, but as the 1st opposite party had no transaction with the complainant as alleged no reply was send. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint as against this opposite party with compensatory cost.

3. The 2nd opposite party remains ex-parte.

4. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 & P2. Opposite parties had no evidence.

5. From the contentions made by the complainant, the points to be decided are:

      1. Whether there is any deficiency in service?

      2. If the above is in affirmative, then by whom, opposite party 1 or 2 or both the opposite parties?

      3. Reliefs and costs?

6. Points (i) to (iii): The grievance of the complainant is that, the parcel containing 4 yantras and 100 years of Panchangam has not been delivered to the complainant's son. Ext.P1 courier consignment note goes to prove that a consignment has been sent by the complainant on payment of Rs.2,100/- towards service charges. The date of booking the consignment has not been mentioned in Ext.P1. Ext.P1courier consignment note, containing the terms and conditions of the contract has not been signed by the consignor. Complainant alleges that, it has not yet reached the destination. The complainant further has alleged that, she had entrusted the parcel with the 1st opposite party who is the franchisee of the 2nd opposite party. We have carefully perused Ext.P1, wherein only the name of the 2nd opposite party is mentioned. There is no mentioning of 1st opposite party in Ext.P1. From Ext.P1 it could not be made out that it has been issued by the 1st opposite party as it does not bear either the seal or any details to come to a conclusion that Ext.P1 has been issued by 1st opposite party, who is alleged to be the franchisee of the 2nd opposite party.

7. From the above, we conclude that, the complainant has failed to establish, with cogent evidence, any deficiency in service and transaction with the 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party has not appeared before the Forum and not contested the matter. As such the allegations levelled against them stand unchallenged. Hence we find that the 2nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to her.


 

8. The contents of the parcel are not revealed by the complainant, as per Ext.P1. Since the 2nd opposite party has not contested the case or denied the same, we also do not want to take a view against that. Hence we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.2,100/- along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- from the 2nd opposite party.


 

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The 2nd opposite party shall refund Rs.2,100/- along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and costs of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% till realisation. The 1st opposite party is exempted from any liability.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 31st day of October, 2009.


 


 

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.


 


 

 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.


 


 


 

BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.


 


 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

O.P.No.398/2003


 

APPENDIX


 

I. Complainant's witness : NIL


 

II. Complainant's documents:

 

P1 : Receipt No.1456179.


 

P2 : Copy of Advocate notice dated 7/5/2003.


 

  1. Opposite parties' witness : NIL


 

  1. Opposite parties' documents : NIL


 


 


 


 


 

PRESIDENT


 

ad. 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:


 

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

 

O.P. No: 398/2003 Filed on 1/10/2003

Dated : 31..10..2009


 

Complainant:

Lalithamma, Lalithasree, House No.220, Pongumoodu, Medical College – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 11.

(J. Kamalamma & A.S. Anilkumar)


 

Opposite parties:

      1. The Proprietor, V.K. Communication, Vadayakkadu, Kannammoola, Thiruvananthapuram – 37.

         

        (By Adv. Konniyoor S. Harichandran)

         

      2. The Managing Director, Blaze Flash Couriers Pvt. Ltd., Near Sivasakthi Kalyanamandapam, East Fort, Thiruvananthapuram.

         

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 11..05..2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 22..09..2009, the Forum on 31..10..2009 delivered the following:


 

ORDER


 

SMT.S.K. SREELA, MEMBER:


 

The complaint in brief is as follows: On 20/2/2003, the complainant had entrusted a parcel containing 4 yantras and 100 years of panchangam worth Rs.5,000/- to the 1st opposite party to send to her son who is working in Behrain and the complainant paid Rs.2,100/- as service charges. The 1st opposite party is working as the authorised Fanchisee of the 2nd opposite party and the 1st opposite party after receiving the parcel issued a receipt to the complainant to that effect. At the time of acceptance, the 1st opposite party had assured the complainant that the parcel will be delivered to the addressee within one week. As the parcel was not delivered to the addressee, the complainant approached the opposite parties but they refused to repay the amount and hence this complaint has been necessitated.

2. The 1st opposite party has filed their version denying the entire allegations levelled against them. The 1st opposite party contends that they do not know the complainant and has not received any parcel from her as alleged in the complaint. That it is true that the complainant had sent an advocate notice, but as the 1st opposite party had no transaction with the complainant as alleged no reply was send. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint as against this opposite party with compensatory cost.

3. The 2nd opposite party remains ex-parte.

4. Complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 & P2. Opposite parties had no evidence.

5. From the contentions made by the complainant, the points to be decided are:

      1. Whether there is any deficiency in service?

      2. If the above is in affirmative, then by whom, opposite party 1 or 2 or both the opposite parties?

      3. Reliefs and costs?

6. Points (i) to (iii): The grievance of the complainant is that, the parcel containing 4 yantras and 100 years of Panchangam has not been delivered to the complainant's son. Ext.P1 courier consignment note goes to prove that a consignment has been sent by the complainant on payment of Rs.2,100/- towards service charges. The date of booking the consignment has not been mentioned in Ext.P1. Ext.P1courier consignment note, containing the terms and conditions of the contract has not been signed by the consignor. Complainant alleges that, it has not yet reached the destination. The complainant further has alleged that, she had entrusted the parcel with the 1st opposite party who is the franchisee of the 2nd opposite party. We have carefully perused Ext.P1, wherein only the name of the 2nd opposite party is mentioned. There is no mentioning of 1st opposite party in Ext.P1. From Ext.P1 it could not be made out that it has been issued by the 1st opposite party as it does not bear either the seal or any details to come to a conclusion that Ext.P1 has been issued by 1st opposite party, who is alleged to be the franchisee of the 2nd opposite party.

7. From the above, we conclude that, the complainant has failed to establish, with cogent evidence, any deficiency in service and transaction with the 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party has not appeared before the Forum and not contested the matter. As such the allegations levelled against them stand unchallenged. Hence we find that the 2nd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to her.


 

8. The contents of the parcel are not revealed by the complainant, as per Ext.P1. Since the 2nd opposite party has not contested the case or denied the same, we also do not want to take a view against that. Hence we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.2,100/- along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- from the 2nd opposite party.


 

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The 2nd opposite party shall refund Rs.2,100/- along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and costs of Rs.1,500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 12% till realisation. The 1st opposite party is exempted from any liability.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 31st day of October, 2009.


 


 

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.


 


 

 

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.


 


 


 

BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.


 


 

 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

O.P.No.398/2003


 

APPENDIX


 

I. Complainant's witness : NIL


 

II. Complainant's documents:

 

P1 : Receipt No.1456179.


 

P2 : Copy of Advocate notice dated 7/5/2003.


 

  1. Opposite parties' witness : NIL


 

  1. Opposite parties' documents : NIL


 


 


 


 


 

PRESIDENT


 

 




......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad