SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. Basheerkutty has filed this complaint before the Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The brief facts of the allegations are as follows:- He had entrusted a parcel with the opposite party on 18.3.2008 for sending it to one Muhammed Shahab at Hussainabad and he paid to a sum of Rs.550/- as parcel charge. Opposite party had accepted the parcel charge and issued receipt. But later the said parcel did not reach the addressee. When he contacted the opposite party, the opposite party has assured that the parcel will be reached to the addressee without delay. But later the opposite party had informed him that the said parcel was returned without serving the addressee. When contacted the opposite party for collecting the parcel, it was found that the parcel was opened and the article in it has been taken away. For the said parcel he had spent a sum of Rs.2450/- and a sum of Rs.550/- by way of charges paid to the opposite party, for sending the same to the addressee. He had not obtained a positive steps for relief from the opposite party. Hence this complaint for getting the said amounts, together with compensation and cots. 2. Notice sent to the opposite party. They entered appearance before this Forum and filed objection. In the objection of the opposite party, it is stated that the whole facts are false. It is further stated that at the time of getting the parcel for sending the same to the addressee, they had collected the mobile number of the addressee from the complainant and intimated him that since place is in a remote area, they will send the article to a nearby area and that the addressee can collect the article after getting the information through mobile phone. It is stated that they had intimated the complainant, the said article will return in case any default within in a stipulated time, and that the complainant had fully realized those matters at the time of entrusting the article with them and accepted the receipt for that. They had sent the article safely to the addressee and it reached their office near the residence of the addressee. But without serving the article to the address, it returned to their office within 15 days from the date of dispatch due to the non-acceptance of the said parcel by the addressee from their office near the residence of the addressee. It is further stated that they had intimated the complainant regarding the return of the parcel and the complainant refused to accept the parcel from their office. It is further stated that the complainant had not sustained any loss and he is not entitled to get any compensation. Since there is no deficiency in service on their part, the complaint is to be dismissed. 3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the following issues:- 1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cots from the opposite party? 4. Issues 1 and 2:- On the side of the complainant he has filed proof affidavit in support of his case and produced documents in evidence. Ext.A1 to A4 marked and he has been cross examined by the opposite party. Ext.A1 is the original Receipt No. 2977266 dt. 18.3.08. It was issued by the opposite party to the complainant. It shows the remittance of Rs.550/- for the parcel having 5 kg. weight. It further shows the full address of the addressee with Mobile Number. The 2nd page of the receipt shows the conditions regarding the parcels. Ext.A2 is the copy of the advocate notice dt. 23.6.2008 sent by the complainant to the opposite party, regarding the issue and for other relief. Ext.A3 is the original advocate notice sent to the opposite party by the complainant, which is returned to the complainant without accepting the same by the opposite party. Ext.A4 is the postal receipt of the above advocate notice to the opposite party. 5. On the side of the opposite party; they have filed proof affidavit in support of their contentions and produced one document in evidence. Ext.B1 marked and it is the blank form of the receipt showing the details of term and conditions. 6. On a perusal of the entire matter of the case and on examination of the documents produced by both parties and after a detailed hearing, it can be seen that the complainant had entrusted a parcel with the opposite party for sending the same to the Muhammed shahab at Hussainabad. The opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.550/- from the complainant by way of parcel charges, for sending the same to the addressee. The receipt (Ext.A1) shows the correct address with postal index number and mobile number of the addressee. The parcel has the weight of 5 kg. But it had not reached the destination and it has returned after so many days. The explanation offered by the opposite party will not be sustain since the opposite party has accepted the parcel for sending to the addressee with correct address with the mobile number. The opposite party has to take necessary further steps to ensure the acceptance of the parcel by the addressee, since they have accepted the same from the complainant and collected the charge of Rs.550/-. Any kind of deviation from non entrusting the parcel with the addressee will amounts to deficiency in service and negligence. All the contentions raised by the opposite party will not have any locus standi and it has no substance. It is to be noticed that the opposite party has not filed any document before the Forum to show that they have intimated the return of the parcel in their office without serving to the addressee or produced the parcel before the Forum. The statement regarding the reasons for non entrusting the parcel with the addressee cannot be accepted since there is dereliction of duty on the part of the opposite party. The entire procedure taken by the opposite party shows the irresponsible attitude in dealing with this matter. So the objection stated by the opposite party has no bona fides and it cannot be accepted as valid grounds for non entrusting the article with the addressee. The whole matter shows that the action of the opposite party was highly illegal, arbitrary and unauthorized. There is grossest deficiency in service and culpable negligence on the part of the opposite party by way of non-entrusting the parcel with the addressee in time after collecting the charge of Rs.550/- from the complainant. So the complainant is fully entitled to get compensation and costs. In this respect, we are of the strong view that the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party are to be treated as genuine and that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. The issues are found in favour of the complainant. In the result, we hereby direct the opposite party to pay Rs.2450/- (Rupees two thousand four hundred and fifty only) as costs of the parcel and return the parcel charges of Rs.550/- (Rupees five hundred and fifty only) to the complainant which was collected by the opposite party from the complainant and further pay a compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant for his mental agony, pain, inconvenience, sufferings and loss due to the grossest deficiency in service and culpable negligence on the part of the opposite party by way of non entrusting the parcel with the addressee in time and further pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs for this proceedings. We further direct the opposite party to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of November, 2009. Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan: Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah: Sd/- Smt.N.Shajitha Beevi: Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant:- PW1 - Basheerkutty Ext.A1 - Receipt for Rs.550/- Ext.A2 - Copy of the Legal notice dated 23.6.2008 Ext.A3 - Returned registered letter and acknowledgement card Ext.A4 - Postal Receipt Evidence of the opposite party:- RW1 - Vijay Anand Ext.b1 - Receipt with terms and conditions // True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Opposite party/S.F. Typed by:- Pr/- Compared by:- | 
