Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President
Smt. Sreeja. S., Member
Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member
30th day of November 2022
CC 701/19 filed on 24/12/19
Complainant : Bijesh V.V., S/o Vijayan, Proprietor, Best Systems,
28/533/6) Ambatt building, Nr. North Bus Stand,
Thrissur – 680 001.
(By Adv. Parameshwara Menon N., Thrissur)
Opposite Parties : 1) Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager, North Bus Stand,
Behind Kalyan Hyper Market, Thrissur – 680 002.
2) Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager, Kalvary Road,
Kalvary Junction, Thrissur, Poothole, Pin – 680 004.
3) Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager,
Apra-11, CC44/1013, LFC Road, Pottakuzhy,
North Kaloor, Cochin – 682 017.
(Ex-parte)
F I N A L O R D E R
By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :
- The complaint in brief, as averred :
The complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant who statedly runs an establishment namely “Best Systems” for livelihood, used to entrust the 2nd opposite party courier company branch at Thrissur, to courier goods to various places. The 1st opposite party is the another branch also located at Thrissur, of the said courier company. The 3rd opposite party is the Head Office of the 1st & the 2nd opposite parties. The complainant, on 07/09/19 couriered a ‘Lenova Think-pad Lap top” through the 1st opposite party to Ms. Multy Soft Solution Bangalore, for servicing of the lap top. Unlike the promise made by the 1st opposite party, the lap top in question was not delivered in time to the addressee. The complainant’s questioning the same, allegedly annoyed the opposite party and consequently another set of seven consignments which the complainant entrusted with the 2nd opposite party for despatching to various places, was deliberately and maliciously detained by the 2nd opposite party. The disturbed owner of the above said lap top which was sent to Bangalore through the first opposite party while tumultuously questioned the complainant, the complainant was statedly forced to provide him with a lap top worth Rs.25,000/- along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
The 2nd opposite party, subsequently returned the seven consignments with them to the complainant, consequent to the complainant’s having launched a petition in the East Police Station, Thrissur. The complainant claims that the non-delivery of these consignments to the respective addressees had blemished his goodwill and inflicted financial loss on him. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the lap top, apart from other reliefs of compensation and costs.
2) NOTICE :
The Commission issued notice to all the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party has not entered appearance or filed their version before the Commission, in spite on their having received the Commission’s Notice to that effect. Accordingly, the proceedings against the 2nd opposite party were set ex-parte.
Notices to the 1st & the 3rd opposite parties were respectively returned with postal endorsements of “not known” and “left”. Substituted service of notice to these opposite parties through News Paper publication, also evoked no result. Hence proceedings against the 1st & the 3rd opposite parties were also set ex-parte.
3) Evidence :
The complainant produced documental evidence that had been marked Exts. A1 to A4, apart from affidavit and notes of arguments. The proceedings against the opposite parties being set ex-parte, no evidence produced on their part.
4) Deliberation of evidence and facts of the case :
The Commission has very carefully examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. A1 is copy of receipt No.079 dtd. 01/10/19 issued to the complainant by the Police Station, Thrissur towards the receipt of a petition regarding the non-delivery of articles sent by courier. Ext. A2 is courier receipt No.4310092568 issued by the 3rd opposite party, with consignee’s name entered as “Multi Soft Solution”. Ext. A3 is Tax Invoice No.550 dt. 05/11/2019 issued by Ms. Taurus Distributers, Rays Complex, Thrissur to one Mr. Reji C.R., towards the sale of a lap top and carry case for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Ext. A4 is copy of the Certificate of Registration issued under Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2005 in favour of the complainant.
5) Points of deliberation :
(i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties ?
(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to receive any compensation
from the opposite parties ? If so its quantum ?
(iii) Costs ?
6) Point No.(i)
Ext. A4 Certificate reveals that the complainant runs an establishment dealing with computer, computer parts etc. The complainant alleges that the lap top that was sent to Bangalore for servicing, through the 1st opposite party vide Ext. A2 receipt was not delivered to the addressee in time, consequent to which lapse on the part of the 1st opposite party, he was forced to provide vide Ext. A4 Invoice, a new lap top worth Rs.25,000/- to the aggrieved lap top owner. Likewise, he also alleges that the illegal detention of his another set of seven consignments by the 2nd opposite party, tarnished the good will of his firm and inflicted financial loss on him.
The 2nd opposite party in spite of having received the Commission’s notice consciously abstained from entering appearance before the Commission and also had not cared even to file their version before the Commission. The 2nd opposite party’s conscious failure in filing their written version, despite having received the Commission’s Notice to that effect, amounts to admission of the allegations levelled against them. The Hon’ble National Commission expressed the same view by its order reported as 2017 (4) CPR Page No.590 (NC). The 1st & the 2nd opposite parties are Branch Offices of the 3rd opposite party company. They are all one and the same, so far as the claims made in the complaint are concerned. The 2nd opposite party who had duly comprehended the contents of the complaint certainly does have the bounden duty to communicate the same to the other two opposite parties that are its own allies. Alternate service of notice through publication in print medium was also effected in respect of the 1st & the 3rd opposite parties. Hence the 1st & the 3rd opposite parties had also consciously evaded from their filing their written version before the Commission. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary we find no reason to disbelieve the allegations raised by the complainant. Hence under the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to infer that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
7) Point No.(ii) :
Though the laptop that was sent for servicing vide Ext. A2 courier receipt, was not delivered in time to the addressee, it might have been delivered to the addressee subsequently and might further have been returned to the complainant after necessary servicing. The complainant hardly made any mention at all in this regard. Resultantly, the complainant has not proved himself to be entitled to a total refund of the invoice price of the new laptop under Ext. A4 invoice. But the misdeeds on the part of the opposite parties inflicted financial loss, agony and hardship to the complainant. The opposite parties have necessarily to compensate the complainant. We are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to receive from the opposite parties a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the financial loss, agony and hardship, he underwent.
8) Point No. (iii) :
The complainant is also entitled to receive from the opposite parties a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards costs.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for the financial loss, agony and hardship he underwent, and
- pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) towards costs,
all with 9% interest p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the above direction, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 30th day of November 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
Sreeja S. Ram Mohan R C. T. Sabu
Member Member President
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 copy of receipt No.079 dtd. 01/10/19 issued to the complainant by the
Police Station, Thrissur towards the receipt of a petition regarding the
non-delivery of articles sent by courier.
Ext. A2 courier receipt No.4310092568 issued by the 3rd opposite party, with
Consignee’s name entered as “Multi Soft Solution”.
Ext. A3 Tax Invoice No.550 dt. 05/11/2019 issued by Ms. Taurus Distributers,
Rays Complex , Thrissur to one Mr. Reji C.R., towards the sale of a lap
top and carry case for a sum of Rs.25,000/-.
Ext. A4 copy of the Certificate of Registration issued under Kerala Value
Added Tax Act, 2005 in favour of the complainant.
Id/- Member
