Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/27/2020

Sri Vinay P.Palekar S/o Pandurangappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor,Proffesional courier center, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Ashok.V

30 May 2022

ORDER

                                    Filed On:  18/03/2020.

                               Disposed  On: 30/05/2022.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT CHITRADURGA

 

CC No: 27/2020

Dated:30th May 2022

 

PRESENT:- Sri.M.I.Shigli, PRESIDENT

                    B.A., LL.M

  Smt.B.H. YASHODA, LADY MEMBER

                   B.A. LL.B

                Sri. G.SREEPATHI, MEMBER

                          B.Com. LL.B  

                                  

COMPLAINANT/s:-	Sri Vinay P.Palekar, S/o.Pandurangappa D.Palekar, Age: about 30 years, Occ: Cameraman, BTV News,     Rep.by Sri.Ashok.V, Advocate
OPPOSITE PARY :-	The Proprietor, Professional Courier Centre, Kallaveerappa Building, Head Post Office Road, Chitradurga. Rep.by Sri.H.T.Jagannath, Advocate

 

 

By Sri.M.I.SHIGLI, PRESIDENT 

 

ORDER

 

        This case is filed by the complainant against the OP Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986. And the factual matrix is as under:

1. That the complainant booked courier parcel on 29.07.2019 to be delivered to his relative in Bhatkal said to contain a CD and a pen drive. The complainant is said to have paid service charges of Rs.60/- vide receipt issued by the OP Courier agency. It’s stated that after the said materials consigned to the OP, it was not delivered to the consignee at Bhatkal. And on due enquiry it was found that the parcel was not delivered by the OP.
2. It’s stated that on frequent enquiry with the OP, it was disclosed that the parcel could not be delivered. At last the complainant got issued a legal notice on 29.01.2020 for which the OP has not given any heed. And ultimately, the complainant has approached this commission by this complaint.
3. Having registered this complaint this commission issued notice to OP who appeared through his counsel on 09.11.2020. However the version of OP came to be filed on 01.04.2020. The OP in his version though has denied the contents of complaint but has posed ignorance as to its delivery. Similarly on page no.2 after para 6 of his version has categorically admitted the fact that, an envelop of complainant addressed to Bhatkal belonging to CTG722021 was received on 29.07.2019 but has shown his ignorance as its contents. It is further stated that during that period there was incessant rain in towns like Bhatkal and Madikere and cities were lashed out. It’s stated that such parcels from Chitradurga were also included in it. It’s stated that such things did happen due to Natural Calamity and hence they were not liable for any loss. Accordingly OP has sought for the complaint as not maintainable.
4. When the case was set for Evidence, the complainant got himself examined as PW1 and got marked document at Ex.A1 to A4 and closed his side. The OP has also examined himself as DW1 and not marked any documents from his side. Counsels for both sides have submitted their written arguments.
5. Heard argument of both counsels. And the following points for consideration are framed viz.:

1. Whether the complainant proves that he is the customer of OP and proves that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
2. What Order?

Our considered findings on the above points are:

Point No.1:Affirmative

Point No.2: As pr final order for the following

 

REASONS

6. In the light of the factual matrix is narrated supra it is not the disputed fact that, the complainant is the consumer as envisaged u/s.2(d) of CP Act 1986 (No.68 of 1986). It is also evident that the service offered by the OP falls within the ambit of meaning of service meant u/s.2(o) of the Act.
7. Now the only question we are confronted with is whether non-delivery of the consignment addressed to the party at Bhatkal amounts to “Deficiency” as contemplated u/s.2(g) of the Act?
8. The cursary reading of the provision of Sec.2(g) with reference to the facts in hand make it abundant clear that, the act of negligence in non-delivery owing to the alleged heavy rainfall in cities like Bhatkal and Madikere as stated by the OP in his version coupled with his evidence is not supported by any plausible material. And his ignorance as to whether such envelop was delivered or not surprises this commission as to how the OP is negligent in shedding his onus. This part of the defence of OP compels us to infer that the OP has given a deficient service to the consumer. It’s obvious that this commission fails to appreciate the contention as to whether the complainant has sent CD and a pendrive said to have contained a bunch of photographs taken on marriage ceremony as the same could not be manifestly proved by the complainant.
9. This commission may not also appreciate the alleged fact that the complainant has spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards photography and videography on the event. But one can understand that, such photos can’t be taken again in life, if it were to be true. However we can’t ignore the plight of the situation where the complainant is struck and this naturally puts the complainant to much hardship and mental agony.
10. The non delivery of the parcel by the OP is alleged to be owing to “Force Majeure”. In view of the above, the OP partly cannot take the shelter of “Force Majeure” The reasons cited by the OP  party appear to be veiled as “Force Majeure” conditions and seem to be an attempt to wriggle out of its obligations. (Manoj Kanatra V/s. Pioneer Urban Land Infrastructure Ltd., CC No.1442/2018 NCDRC).
11. On the other hand the OP could not substantiate his stand taken as defence in any manner except his oral evidence. This compels us to hold that, the point no.1 is to be answered in the affirmative. As far as point no.2 is concerned it is observed that definitely the complainant is to be compensated and the dereliction of duty to give better service and the OP has to make good the loss of the complainant.
12. As far as quantum of compensation that could be awarded to the complainant, we feel that ends of justice would be met by awarding nominal compensation of Rs.10,000/- for deficiency of service and the OP shall be liable to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The OP is liable to pay the aggregated amount of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which he shall be liable to pay interest @6% p.a. till its realization on the above said compensation amount. In terms of above the complaint is allowed in part.
13. Point No.2: As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we proceed to pass the following

::ORDER::

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

The OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards deficiency of service, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which he shall be liable to pay interest @6% p.a. till its realization on the above said compensation amount

     Supply free copy of this order to both parties.

 

(Dictated to stenographer and typed in computed and transcribed him, verified  and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this 30^th May 2022)

 

 

 

MEMBER                 MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

Msr

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNEXURES

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of complainant:

PW-1 Vinay P.Palekar  S/o.Pandurangappa D.Palekar

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of opponent:

DW-1 H.C.Shivashankar Naik, S/o.Channabasappa Naik

 

3. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:

1. Ex.A-1- Courier Receipt issued by OP
2. Ex.A-2 - Copy of legal notice dt.29.01.2020
3. Ex.A-3 & 4- Postal Receipt and Acknowledgement

 

4. Documents marked on behalf of opponent:

-NIL-

 

 

 

MEMBER                 MEMBER                 PRESIDENT