By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1. The complaint in short is as follows: -
The complainant is principal of Malabar Private ITI, Cherur of Malappuram District. He entrusted two electronic instruments CRO on 10-06-2019 with the first opposite party courier to send to the manufactures Aplab limited, Bangalore for servicing. The consignment was properly packed with thermo coal and also using masking tape with sticker handle with care. On 13-06-2019 it was informed that the courier article received in damaged condition and the photos of the same also received by the complainant. The complainant immediately issued email message and also postal complaints to the opposite party. The complainant purchased new CRO worth Rs.21,240/- for the examination purpose of the students. Thereafter it was informed that the complaint entrusted with one Smt. Anjline to address the grievance but no action was taken. Subsequently the complainant issued several messages to the opposite party.
2. The costly articles which is regularly using in the institution of complainant sent through the opposite party and the opposite party handled the same in a most careless manner resulted irreparable loss and hardships and complaint thereon ended without any consideration. Hence the complainant prays for refund of 21,240/- rupees each for the CROs and pray for compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with cost.
3. On admission of the complaint issued notice to opposite party and they entered appearance, filed version in detail. The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant is running a business establishment which comes under the exempted category of “commercial” purpose under the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite party admit that the complainant entrusted two articles on 10-06-2019 but denied that the said two boxes were properly packed with using thermo coal and masking tape, there was tag stating the article is an electronic instrument. The contention of the opposite party is that complainant has not produced damaged articles before the Commission and in the absence of the same it is not fair to consider the complaint. The contention in the complaint that on 13-06-2019 the AP lab Bangalore branch communicated to the AP lab Ernakulam and from that it was learned that the consignment was in a damaged condition and one of the consignments was not received there and the same was informed through telephone and email, and an employee Mr. Kannan of Aplab Ernamakulam branch informed the complainant are denied by the opposite par4ty. The consignments sent by the complainant was delivered at AP Lab Bangalore on 12-06-2019 and 13-06-2019. There was no complaint registered at the time of delivery of the consignment. It can be seen that the allegation of the complainant that damage caused to both consignments were similar in nature. The opposite party denied that the complainant sent messages through email and postal departments on 19-06-2019 and 24-06-2019 to the opposite parties to Vengara, Tirur, Bangalore, Cochi, Mumbai etc. since it is not correct. The opposite party also contended that the cost of the instrument for repairing is shown as Rs.25,000/- but the same was purchased by the complainant for Rs.21,240/- which shows that the attempt of the complainant is to grab money from the opposite party. The contention of the opposite party is that the cost shown by the complainant as per document B2 is Rs.5,000/- each only. The opposite party contented that they delivered the consignment in time to the proper addressee and if there was any defect at the time of delivery the consignee should not have received the same. The consignee has not registered a complaint at the time of receipt of consignment. The allegation of the complainant is totally baseless, incorrect and only to cause inconveniences and harassment to the opposite party on the basis of hearsay and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost of opposite party.
4. The Complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. Documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext.A1 to A12 and MO1 and MO2. Ext. A1 is a photo copy of complaint by complainant to the opposite party dated 13/06/2019. Ext. A2 is photo copy of courier receipts two in number dated 10/06/2019 for worth Rs.750/- each. Ext. A3 series are copy of emails dated 13/06/2019. Ext. A4 is copy of email sent to Ms. Anjaline Ext. A5 is photo copy of terms and conditions of the Professional Couriers. Ext. A6 is series of photographs. Ext. A7 is tax invoice Professional Scientific worth Rs.21,240/- dated 08/07/2019. Ext. A8 is the photo copy of trust deed of Noorual Hudha Charitable Trust. Ext. A9 is list of tools and equipment for the trade of E & M for first & second semester Ext. A10 is photo copy of AP lab instruction manual. Ext. A11 is photo copy of Curriculum of Electronics and Mechanics issued by Government of India, Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship Directorate General of Training. Ext. A12 is photo copy of broacher – model – 2OMHz Dual Trace Oscilloscope. MO 1 &MO 2 are two consignment boxes alleged to be damaged in transit. The opposite party filed documents marked as Ext. B1 and B2. Ext. B1 is photo copy of delivery receipt and B2 is consignment booking receipt date 19-06-2019. Heard the complainant and opposite parties, perused the affidavit and documents.
5. The following points arise for consideration: -
1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Relief and cost?
6. Pont No.1and 2
The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is running an educational institution and which is working for commercial purpose and so they are excluded from the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant submitted that they are a charitable trust and they availed service of the opposite party for transporting an electronic instrument to get serviced for the effective use during the examination period. The service opted from the opposite party is only to transport the article to the service Centre. The opposite party has received consideration from the complainant for transporting the consignment to the consignee and they were under taken to provide service. Though the complainant is running an educational institution the service availed from the opposite party cannot be excluded as stated by the opposite party. The service rendering by the opposite party comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and so we do not find any merit in the contention of the opposite party regarding the maintainability.
7. The case of the complainant is that he entrusted 2 consignments to the opposite party on 10-06-2019 to deliver to the consignee for repairing the electronic device. The purpose of sending the 2 consignment was to ensure accuracy of the function of electronic device which is to be given to the students during their practical examination. On 13-06-2019 when the consignment received at the consignee office it was brought to the notice that both consignments were in damaged condition. The contention of the complainant is that though the consignments were transported simultaneously the delivery was effected 2 occasions. The grievance is that not in delay but both consignments were in a damaged condition. The complainant immediately on receipt of the communication about the damaged condition of consignments informed the opposite party and all the responsible persons of the opposite party. There was no proper redressal of grievance of the complainant. The complainant thereby compelled to purchase a new electronics machine to provide to the students at the time of practical examination.
8. The opposite party disputed the averment of the complainant in all aspects. But they admitted that complainant had booked two consignments. The case of the opposite eparchy is that they delivered properly and in time to the consignee. According to opposite party the consignee did not make any objection at the time of receipt of consignment alleging damage to the consignments. More over the complainant has not produced damaged consignment before the Commission as part of complaint. Moreover, the value of damaged consignment declared was Rs. 5,000/- each and if at all the loss is sustained to complainant there is no liability to reimburse the complainant as prayed.
9. The complainant produced two consignments before the Commission and they are marked as Ext.MO1and MO 2. We have verified the consignment box in presence of both parties and it was found that the allegation of the complainant as true. It can be seen that complainant had made several communications with opposite party placing his grievance properly. But there is no evidence before the Commission that the opposite party redressed the grievance of the complainant. The complainant submits that each of the electronic instrument worth Rs.21,240/- and they are entitled for that amount. The complainant produced a document which is marked as Ext. A7 will show the cost of electronic instrument involved in the complaint. Ext. A11 reveals the list of equipment required for the course conducting by the complainant. It is stated that two CRO dual trace 20MHz component testing facilities required for the said course. The case of the complainant is that two consignments were two instruments required at the time of practical examination of students. Hence the requirement of the complainant was highly important and for the same purpose with great confidence in opposite party entrusted the consignment with sufficient precaution and in duly packed condition. But it was seen delivered to the consignee in a damaged condition and it is established by producing MOs before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Hence, the Commission finds that there is deficiency in-service on the part of the opposite party and the question is only to be decided is the extent of liability of the opposite party.
10. Point NO.3
The claim of the complainant is that opposite part is bound to pay the cost of
instrument worth Rs.21,240/- each. He also claims compensation not less than Rs. 20,000/- and cost. But the opposite party produced Ext. B2 which shows that rate of the consignment as Rs.5,000/- each. It can be seen that the document Ext. B2 is not the declaration of complainant but Aplab Limited to whom the complainant sends the consignment. So, it is not proper to find the averment in B2 as binding on complainant. It is evident that the value of the instrument involved in the complaint at present is Rs. 21,240/-. But the consignments containing instruments cannot be valued as per any documents produced either by the complainant or the opposite party. In the absence of purchase bill and proper evaluation it is not just to allow the entire prayer of the complainant. The complainant has not established the extent of damage caused to the consignment and chance for rectification of damage also. In the interest of justice, the Commission consider that it will be just and proper to allow the value of one instrument which the complainant already purchased. The Commission consider that the complainant might have suffered lot of inconvenience and hardships due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. An educational institution running by a charitable organization with number of students will be in trouble in such a situation. Considering the entire aspects in dispute, we allow compensation of Rs.10,000/-. The Commission also allows cost of Rs.5,000/-.
- In the light of above facts and circumstances the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.21,240/- (Rupees twenty one thousand two hundred and forty only) towards cost of instruments involved in the complaint.
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.
- The opposite party also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
- MOs 1and 2 be released to the complainant.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above entire amount shall bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of this order till date of payment.
Dated this 5th day of January, 2022.
