KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 182/2012

JUDGMENT DATED. 31.07.2012

 PRESENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA             :  HON. ACTING PRESIDENT

SMT. A. RADHA                                  :  MEMBER

APPELLANT

The Manager,

Speed & Safe Courier Co.,

Near Kottayam Railway Station, Kottayam

.

                      ( Rep. by Adv.  Baby M Perumpillil & others) 

                                                          Vs

RESPONDENT

Vincent K Antony,

Kunnel House, S.H. Mount P.O., Kumaranalloor, Kottayam.

                        ( Rep. by Adv. Koliacode K. Rajeev)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA             :  HON. ACTING PRESIDENT

            This appeal preferred by the opposite party from the direction of the CDRF, Kottayam in C.C. 13/2011 dated 30.12.2011, the respondent is the complainant.  The appellant challenged the order of the Forum below that the Forum below directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 1000/- as compensation for deficiency in service committed by them and also ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 750/- as cost of the proceedings.

          2. This appeal came before this Commission for final hearing both the counsels are present and they argued their own cases vehemently on the strength of the law and evidence adduced by both sides.  The complainant’s case is that a cover containing a document which was sent to him by his cousin Jacob from Pathanamthitta through the opposite party on 22.12.2010.    The opposite party contacted the complainant on 23.12.2010 and directed him to collect the said consignment from their office near to railway station, Kottayam.  According to the  complainant he was undergoing on  a treatment at home due to a fracture sustained on the right hand requested the opposite parties to deliver the article at his own residence.  The request of the complainant was refused by the opposite party.  Consequently the complainant had to go to the appellant’s office inspite of his physical disability. Hence the complaint.

          3.  The appellant/opposite party entered appearance and filed their written version and contended that the complainant is not a consumer come under the purview of the C.P. Act as claimed by him that he is not booked any consignment by consigning with the appellant, The attempt of the complainant is nothing but an experimental motive and as a result of some other enemity.

          4.  The evidence consisted of oral testimony of Pw1 Vincent K. A witness from the part of the complainant and examined Thomas Benny & Binoy K.S. respectively, witnesses from the opposite parties, they are Dw1 & Dw2 Exts. A1 to A5 are the documents produced and marked by the complainant and Ext. B1 and B2, documents produced and marked by the opposite parties. 

          5.  The Forum below heard in detail, appreciated the evidence adduced by both sides and it was seeing that the reply notice issued by the opposite party is produced and the same is marked as Ext. A2.  In Ext. A2 document, the opposite party has no case that the opposite party delivered the consignment at the house of the petitioner.  In Ext. A2 Reply Notice, it is admitted that the consignment was booked from Meta Life and they are duly delivered to the complainant on 23.12.2010 even though the opposite party has a specific case that Dw2 one Binoy K.S. delivered the articles to the petitioner in his house.  Nowhere in Ext. A2 the opposite party placed such a case.  In the version also the opposite party has no specific case that they deliver the consignment in the house of the complainant.  At the evidence stage the opposite party filed an affidavit of one witness and he was examined as Pw2.  The view taken by the CDRF that the case of the opposite party at evidence stage that they delivered the consignment at the house of the petitioner as was only cooked up story which is mainly defand the case.  The Forum below found that the act of the opposite party is nothing but a deficiency in service under the head of the Consumer Protection Act.  The Forum below passed the impugned order.  This order was challenged by the appellant before this Commission.

          6.  This Commission heard in detail and appreciated the entire evidence adduced by both sides and it is seeing that the dispute between the complainant and the opposite party is nothing but the result of the ego bubbles.  There was some other story behind this litigation.  The complainant is not having any case that he spoiled any valuables which sent through the said consignment and  he did not raise any case of damages sustained by him due to the act of the opposite party.  In very simple meaning, the opposite party asked the complainant to correct the letter from their office but the complainant who taken a stand that it is the duty of the opposite party to deliver it in his residence.  The complainant did not have any case that the opposite party refused to give this article to the bearer of the complainant if any. 

7.  We are seeing that   these are unnecessary cases.  We are not seeing any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in this case.  But the Forum below passed the order which may be passed  under the spirit of the legislation  Consumer Protection Act, a socially benefited statute.  We are decided to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  It is not legally sustainable. 

          In the result, this appeal is allowed and set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below;

          The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly. 

          We do so

                      M.K. ABDULLA SONA  : ACTING PRESIDENT

                      A. RADHA                      :  MEMBER

st