BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 339/2010 Filed on 25.10.2010
Dated : 17.01.2011
Complainant:
V. Manoharan, Melethoppu Vila Veedu, Vedivechankovil P.O, Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram- 695 501.
(Appeared in person)
Opposite party:
Venu Nathan, Managing Director, Professional Courier-Head office, Near Thycaud Sasthamkovil, Thycaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
This O.P having been heard on 03.01.2011, the Forum on 17.01.2011 delivered the following :
ORDER
SMT. S.K. SREELA, MEMBER
The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant had entrusted a consignment containing a letter to the State Public Information Officer, KSRTC Depot Office, Vellanadu, Thiruvananthapuram by paying an amount of Rs. 15/-. Since the complainant did not receive any reply from the KSRTC even after 40 days, complainant approached the opposite party and enquired about the consignment several times. Each time, the opposite party returned the complainant saying one reason or other and it was only on 15.06.2010 the complainant was informed that due to wrong address the letter has been returned. Complainant alleges that even though the full address of the complainant was written on the envelop the opposite party never contacted the complainant nor returned the consignment to him. Furthermore the complainant pleads that the staff of the opposite party misbehaved to him. Complainant has pleaded that later he had sent the letter in the same address through Vikas Bhavan post office and the same was received by the addressee. Hence this complaint for compensation and costs.
Opposite party accepted notice from the Forum but neither appeared nor has filed version. Hence they remain exparte.
Complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Exts. P1 to P3 were marked.
The issues for consideration are:-
Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?
Points (i) & (ii):- From Ext. P1 it is evident that the complainant had booked a consignment on 09.04.2010 by paying an amount of Rs. 15/-. According to the complainant opposite party has not delivered the consignment. Since the complainant did not receive any reply from KSRTC, he had approached the opposite party after a period of 40 days. Even at that time opposite party did not inform the complainant regarding the exact position of the consignment. Complainant further pleads that only after a period of 2 months opposite party had informed that the letter could not be delivered since the address was wrong. Here the pertinent aspect to be noted is that Ext. P2 contains the detailed address of the complainant also. Even then opposite party has not informed the complainant or returned the consignment to the complainant's address. Opposite party has not adduced any evidence to controvert the allegations raised against them by the complainant. Hence without any difficulty it can be concluded that the consignment has not been delivered to the addressee by the opposite party in time and the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to justify the non-delivery of the consignment. Thus it definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
As per Ext. P1 Courier Consignment Note, conditions of carriage have been printed on the back wherein it has been stated that no claim whatsoever shall be entertained after 15 days of booking and their liability is limited to Rs. 100/- per articles for any cause. The issue is what is the effect and value of such a limitation clause and whether such clause has a binding effect on the complainant. It is true that the courier consignment note has been signed by the complainant. The aspect to be noted is whether the terms printed were shown to the complainant or that the same were agreed upon by the consignor. The complainant had argued that he was not made aware of the terms and conditions. Such being the case it can not at all be stated that the complainant was put to knowledge of the terms and conditions of the special knowledge restricting the liability of the opposite party courier to Rs. 100/-.
It is a clear case wherein having offered their service, the opposite party did not deliver the letter to the addressee for which charges were paid to them. Prima facie the address is found to be correct as per Ext. P2. We find that serious efforts were not made by the opposite party to deliver the envelop at the address which can be attributed as deficiency in service and negligence on their part. From the above discussions we find that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 15/- which has been paid towards service charges along with Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and costs.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall refund Rs. 15/- to the complainant along with Rs. 1,000/- towards costs and compensation within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest at 9% from the date of receipt of the order.
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, this the 17th day of January 2011.
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 339/2010
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
NIL
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Courier Consignment Note dated 09.04.2010 Receipt No.
7535254.
P2 - Reason for return Wrong address.
P3 - Copy of letter dated 18.06.2010 from KSRTC.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
PRESIDENT
jb
