Date of filing: 29-01-2018 Date of Order : 05.06.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
TUESDAY THE 5th DAY OF JUNE, 2018
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 06 / 2018
B. Sudhakara Reddy, age 48 years,
S/o Late B. Chinna Subbi Reddy,
ICL Colony, Door No. B-09,
Yerraguntla, Muddanur Road,
YSR Kadapa – PIN 516 309, A.P. ….Complainant.
Vs.
1. M/s Professional Couriers,
(Working as Agent of Proddatur Branch),
Proddatur Road, (under Fly-over Bridge),
Near 4 Roads, Yerraguntla – 516 309,
Dist. YSR Kadapa, A.P.
2. Manager,
M/s Professional Couriers,
Trimulgherry, Plot No. 26,
Chandragiri Colony,
Near RTO,
Secunderabad – 500003
(T.S. State),
3. The Managing Director,
M/s Professional Couriers,
1203/A, Bhumiraj Costarica,
Plot No. 1 & 2, Sector 18,
Sanpada, Corporate Office,
Navy Mumbai – 400 705. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 23-5-2018 in the presence of complainant appeared as in person and Opposite party No.1 also appeared as in person and Opposite parties 2 & 3 called absent and set exparte on 3-4-2018, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- cost of imported pen set, to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and to pay Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:-
The Complainant booked a parcel containing one printed book, imported pen set and a personal letter from opposite party No. 1 on 21.9.2017 for delivering the same to his sister residing at Secunderabad vide consignment No. PDT 161421 by paying Rs. 50/-. But after 10 days the parcel was returned to him without mentioning any reason and not delivered to his sister.
3. Again he booked the same parcel from opposite parties courier service on 05.10.2017 to his sister to the same address vide consignment No. PVT 204575. But once again the parcel was returned without delivery and on observing the parcel was in damaged condition as it was tampered by making a hole on one corner of the parcel and opened and the Complainant noticed that pen set and personal letter were missing in the parcel which means the personnel of the Opposite parties snatched away these items. While receiving the parcel in damaged condition the Complainant signed on delivery voucher that the parcel was received in damaged condition and no proper reason mentioned by the opposite party. Then he lodged a complaint with opposite party No.1 on 18.11.2017 but there was no response from them. He also tried to contract the Opposite parties 2 & 3 but there was no response from them. Due to poor and irresponsible service by the Opposite parties the Complainant underwent mental agony as he sent a knowledge enrichment book and imported pen set to his niece and it was not reached to him. Hence, the complaint for the above relifs.
4. Opposite parties 2 & 3 who received notices remained exparte.
5. Opposite party No. 1 filed written version denying his poor service and not delivering the parcel and returned it in damaged condition.
6. It is further averred that he is an agent of M/s Professional Couriers. He admits that the Complainant booked consignment No. PDT 161421 on 21.9.2017 and it was returned for not furnishing telephone number and again on 05.10.2017 the consignment was rebooked vide consignment No. PVD 204575 and the consignment was reached to Hyderabad on 06.10.2017 and dispatched to Hyderabad – Secunderabad on the same day. The consignment was received at Hyderabad Tadbund on 07.10.2017 and the same was dispatched to Hyderabad – Trimulgherry, but consignment was returned to Kurnool on 11.10.2017 due to the reasons best known to them. Again the Kurnool branch dispatched the same to Jadcherla on 12.10.2017 and they dispatched to Hyderabad and received by them on 13.10.2017 thereafter the consignment was dispatched to Kadapa on the same day.
7. It is further averred that Kadapa branch received the consignment and kept in their custody for a period of 14 days without dispatching to Proddatur for the reasons best known to Kadapa branch. Proddatur branch received consignment on 29.10.2017 in damaged condition. Immediately informed the same to the Proddatur Branch office and also to the consignee and informed the consignment was received in damaged condition and consignment was delivered to the party on 30.10.2017 and consignee noted in the acknowledgement that some articles are missed in the consignment. Since the consignment was kept in the custody of Kadapa branch for long period the same might have been tampered and damaged. So he may be kindly exonerated from this issue as no fault on his part. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. No oral evidence has been let in by both parties. But on behalf of the complainant his affidavit filed and got marked Ex. A1 to Ex.A4, but on behalf of opposite party No. 1 his affidavit is filed and got marked Ex. B1.
9. Heard arguments on both sides and considered the affidavit of complainant and O.P.1 and the documents filed by them and perused the record. Written arguments are not filed by the parties.
10. The points that arises for determination are ;
- Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of opposite
parties as pleaded by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the claims against Opposite parties, if so to what extent ?
- To what relief ?
11. Point Nos. i and ii: The Complainant contended that the O.P.1 admitted in his written version that the parcel booked with him was not delivered to the addressee and it was returned to him (Complainant) in damaged condition and missing some articles in the consignment. So the Complainant proved his version mentioned in the complaint and the deficiency in service of opposite parties. Therefore, he is entitled for the total claim from the Opposite parties.
12. Per contra O.P.1 contended that he is not at fault but Kadapa branch kept the consignment in their custody for long period so there is no deficiency in service on his part. Hence, he is not liable to pay the claim of Complainant and complaint against him is liable to be dismissed.
13. In this case there is no dispute that the O.P1 is the authorized agent of the O.Ps 2 & 3 M/s Professional Courier Service at Proddatur. It is further admitted by the O.P1 the Complainant booked the consignment parcel at first instance on 21.9.2017 through O.P.1 to send the same to the addressee at Hyderabad but it was returned without delivery to the addressee and again on 05.10.2017 he booked the same parcel consignment under consignment No. PVT 204575 but the same was not delivered to the addressee and after some days it was returned in damaged condition to him and he delivered the same to the Complainant with endorsement on delivery voucher that the parcel was received in damaged condition.
14. The same was further proved by affidavit of both Complainant and O.P.1 and also Exs. A1 to A4 and Ex. B1.
15. According to the Complainant he booked a parcel containing one printed book, one imported pen set and a personal letter in the parcel on 5.10.2017 to deliver the same to the addressee at Secunderabad but it was not reached to the addressee. On the other hand it was returned to him on 30.10.2017 in damaged condition and tampered the parcel making a hole one corner of the parcel and opened it and pen set and personal letter was missing in the parcel. O.P.1 in his written version also admitted that the consignment was returned to the Complainant on 30.10.2017 and the consignee noted that the articles are missed in the consignment and tampered the parcel and consignment was delivered to him in damaged condition. According to O.P.1 Kadapa branch of M/s Professional Courier Service kept the consignment for a period of 14 days in their custody and the consignment might have been tampered there and got damaged. So the admission of O.P.1 that the consignment was not delivered to the addressee and returned to consignee i.e. Complainant in damaged condition that too missing some articles would definitely comes under deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties 1 to 3. If the addressee is not found to deliver the article the consignment should have been returned to the consignee i.e. the Complainant mentioning the reason for not delivering the same. But here no reason is mentioned either in the first instance or in the second time when the consignment was returned to the Complainant by the Opposite parties courier service people. On the other hand after long lapse of 25 days the consignment was returned to the Complainant that too in damaged condition meddling with the parcel removing certain articles i.e. his imported pen set and personal letter. Therefore, the same amounts to carelessness, deficiency in service and caused mental agony to the Complainant as such we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties towards Complainant and caused mental agony apart from financial loss to the Complainant. Therefore, the Opposite parties 1 to 3 are liable to pay cost of imported pen sent of Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered.
16. Point No. iii:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards cost of pen set, to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as compensation for causing mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a. till realization. Rest of claim of the Complainant is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 5th day of June, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For complainant : NIL For opposite party : Nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant :-
Ex. A1 P/c of couriers receipts dt. 21.9.2017 & 5.10.2017.
Ex. A2 P/c of notice dt. 18.11.2017 issued by the Complainant to the O.P.3.
Ex. A3 P/c of parcel consignment view dt. 30.10.2017.
Ex. A4 P/c of Delivery run sheet dt. 30.10.2017
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties :–
Ex. B1 P/c of delivery details.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to
1) B. Sudhakara Reddy, age 48 years, S/o Late B. Chinna Subbi Reddy, ICL Colony, Door No. B-09, Yerraguntla, Muddanur Road, YSR Kadapa – PIN 516 309, A.P.
2) M/s Professional Couriers,(Working as Agent of Proddatur Branch), Proddatur Road, (under Fly-over Bridge), Near 4 Roads, Yerraguntla – 516 309, Dist. YSR Kadapa, A.P.
3) Manager, M/s Professional Couriers, Trimulgherry, Plot No. 26, Chandragiri Colony, Near RTO, Secunderabad – 500003
(T.S. State),
4) The Managing Director, M/s Professional Couriers, 1203/A,
Bhumiraj Costarica, Plot No. 1 & 2, Sector 18, Sanpada,
Corporate Office, Navy Mumbai – 400 705.
B.V.P
