Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/19/2017

R.Markandan,S/o.Ramasamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager Professional Courier - Opp.Party(s)

R.Balaji

13 Feb 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  03.02.2017

                                                                Order pronounced on:  13.02.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE 13^th DAY OF FEBRUAY 2018

 

C.C.NO.19/2017

 

 

R.Markandan,

S/o.Ramasamy,

44, North Perumal Koil Street,

Melattur,

Thanjavur District.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Regional Manager,

Professional Courier,

17, Cathedral Garden Road,

Nungambakkam,

Chennai – 600 034.

 

2.The Branch-in-charge,

Professional Courier,

Guduvancheri,

Chengalpattu – 603 202.

 

3. The Branch-in-charge,

Professional Courier,

No.12, Varadharajan Street,

Vedachalam Nagar,

Chingalpet – 603 001.

4. The Branch-in-charge,

Professional Courier,

2547, South Main Road,

Thanjavur – 613 009.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 17.02.2017

Counsel for Complainant                      : R.Balaji, G.Alagesan

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : Mr.R.Sathayanarayanan

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay the demand draft value of Rs.4,000/-  and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The 1^st opposite party is the owner/proprietor overseeing and conducting his courier business. The 2^nd opposite party is the actual receiver of goods for delivery and to whom the goods was sent for delivery. The 3^rd opposite party is the Area main Branch and is understood the articles are routed through him to Guduvancheri Branch. The 4^th opposite party is the one who booked and accepted the goods containing the cover for safe delivery.

          2. The complainant booked a normal size cover containing a demand draft of Rs.4000/- with the 4^th opposite party on 17.11.2016 for delivery at the 2^nd opposite party jurisdiction. The addressee is Thiru.S.Somasundaram residing at Guduvancherry. The complainant’s wife was taking treatment at SRM Medical Hospital, Potheri and for her expenses the said amount was sent by the complainant. The cover accepted to be delivered on 18.11.2016 and however the same was not delivered. The complainant came to know that when enquired on 29.11.2016 at the 2^nd opposite party office, the envelope was missing and the same was not delivered.

          3. Due to non delivery of the demand draft for treatment of the complainant wife, he had suffered a loss and mental agony. Therefore the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay the demand draft value of Rs.4,000/-  and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

4. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The subject matter of the consignment was booked at Thanjavur by Bank of Baroda with the 3^rd opposite party on 17.01.2016 to the consignment Mr.Somasundaram. The consignment booked only by the bank on payment of charges of Rs.10/- and not by the complainant. The value of the demand draft of Rs.4,000/- should have  been declared  by the complainant at the time of booking. Further as per RBI requirements if the demand draft value is less than Rs.5,000/-  and loss of TD if any, the party who booked can obtain a duplicate DD on the basis of indemnity. There is no loss to the complainant and hence this opposite parties has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

6. POINT NO :1 

          The 1^st opposite party is the owner/proprietor and overseeing and conducting the courier business and all the other opposite parties are the Branch Offices of the 1^st opposite party and on 17.11.2016 a cover was booked at the 4^th opposite party office at Thanjavur under Ex.A3  on payment of charges of Rs.10/- to be delivered to Mr.Somasundaram at Chennai. The said cover was not delivered to the addressee. The 3^rd opposite party who had sent Ex.A6 letter dated 06.01.2017 to the complainant admitting the cover booked by the complainant and the same was not delivered to the addressee and they regrets for non delivery and requesting to drop further action. In that letter the 3^rd opposite party specifically admitted that the delivery boy who took the cover for delivery had lost the same. Therefore the admission of the 3^rd opposite party and other evidence proves that the opposite parties have not delivered the cover and thereby committed deficiency.

          7. The learned counsel for the  opposite parties would contend that the cover was not booked by the complainant and it was only booked by the Bank  of Baroda,  Thanjavur and therefore the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint and the same is not maintainable and further the contents of Ex.A6 letter will not fasten the liability on the opposite parties, when the complainant is a stranger and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          8.The cover has been booked along with the other covers of the BOB, Thanjavur. The complainant specifically argued that he sent cover to the 4^th opposite party courier from the bank. The Ex.A6 letter specifically addressed to the complainant admitting their liability and also regrets to him. This letters clears that the cover booked under Ex.A3 acknowledgement is that of the complainant and therefore on this score we hold that the complainant has locus standi to file this complaint. Further, Ex.A6 letter cannot fasten the liability on the opposite parties is also rejected for the reason that the letter was addressed to the complainant and further the delivery boy missed the cover. Therefore, from the contents of the Ex.A6 letter and pleadings of both the parties and other documents, the complainant proved that he had booked a consignment to be delivered to Mr.S.Somandaram and the same was not delivered to him, establishes that the opposite parties 1 to 4 have committed deficiency in service.

09. POINT NO:2

          According to the complainant he had sent a demand draft for Rs.4,000/- for the treatment of his wife and the said demand draft was  lost in the cover. It is not case of the complainant that the demand draft was encashed  by the 3^rd parties. The complainant booked the cover with demand draft on 17.11.2016 and he came to know about the loss of his cover or missed are not delivered on 29.11.2016 itself i.e within 12 days of his booking. Hence he would have very well approached the bank informing the incident and obtained the duplicate demand draft and sent to his wife.  Further there is no evidence that the opposite parties have encashed the demand draft sent by him. Since the complainant had not taken any steps to obtain duplicate demand draft is not entitled for the value of the demand draft alleged to have sent by him.

          10. However, the opposite parties have not delivered and lost the consignment booked by the complainant is a serious one and for the same we held above that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Therefore due to the negligent act of the opposite parties the consignment was lost and  such act of deficiency caused mental agony to the complainant is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate  to direct the opposite parties  1 to 4 to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to 4 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one  thousand  only) towards compensation for mental agony to the Complainant, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 13^th day of February 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 26.11.2016                   Medical Record of complainant’s wife

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     Copy of DD Application

Ex.A3 dated 17.11.2016                   Copy of Professional Courier Acknowledgement

Ex.A4 dated 23.12.2016                   Copy of complaint notice to the opposite parties

                                                         along with acknowledgement cards

 

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Returned cover from the 2^nd opposite parties

 

Ex.A6 dated 06.01.2017                   Copy of Reply received from the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A7 dated 19.11.2016                   Copy of Delivery run sheet of 2^nd opposite party

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Details of Courier Consignment

 

Ex.B2 dated NIL                     Courier Bill

 

Ex.B3 dated 16.02.2017                   Bank Statement

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT