Date of Filing:19.06.2009<br /> Date of Order:23.07.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 23RD DAY OF JULY 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1425 OF 2009<br /> <br /> P.P. Bopanna<br /> (Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka)<br /> No. 9, Hayes Road<br /> Richmond Town<br /> Bangalore 560 025 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s. Franchise Express Courier Service<br /> Door No. 43, 8th Cross, 5th Main<br /> Sampangiramnagar<br /> Bangalore 560 027<br /> Rep. by its Manager, Satish Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The facts of the case are as under:<br /> The complainant requested his friend Dr. K.G. Gurubatham, Gurubatham General Hospital, Subramanya Nagar, Salem Junction 636005, to obtain from Germany where his sister is residing a certain quantity of black chocolates with high percentage of Cocoa which the complainant was advised to take for his cardiac problems. Accordingly, Dr. Gurubatham’s sister residing at 36, Tapiuer Allee, Berlin 14033, Germany when she arrived to visit her brother the said Dr. K.G. Gurubatham brought one Kg, of black chocolate in a sealed packet. The said packet was sent through opposite party courier by Dr. K.G. Gurubatham from Salem to the complainant to the address given above. The said consignment was received by opposite party courier in Bangalore. But the same was not delivered to the complainant. On making the necessary enquiries with the opposite party at their office at Brigade Road, the complainant found that the said consignment was delivered to one Kavitha through one Balaji on 08.12.2008 and the receipt voucher bears the complainant’s telephone No. 22211949. Immediately, thereafter the complainant demanded the opposite party courier to compensate the complainant in a sum of Rs. 800/- on a basis of the approximate value of the consignment. On making further enquiries the complainant found that the value of the consignment was more than Rs. 1,000/-. However, the complainant has limited his claim to Rs. 800/- only. A second reminder was sent to the opposite party for reimbursing the amount. The complainant’s driver Mr. Hareesha also met the concerned person at the opposite party’s office at Brigade road. But the opposite party has remained silent and has not repudiated the claim of the complainant. However, some representative of the opposite party called on the complainant and the complainant made a demand of Rs. 800/- to close the matter. But so far the complainant’s demand has not been complied with. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. The complainant has produced delivery voucher of the opposite party. From this voucher it is very clear that a consignment has been sent to the complainant by Dr. K.G. Gurubatham from Salem. In the consignee column it has been clearly mentioned as Hon’ble Justice Mr. P.P. Bopanna. By the delivery voucher it is clear that the complainant has not signed on the same to show that the consignment had been received. On the other hand there is signature of Kavitha. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party had failed to deliver the parcel to the complainant who is a consignee. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant has written two letters to the opposite party informing that the parcel has not been reached to him. The complainant has called upon the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 800/- in the letter. But in spite of the letter sent to the opposite party no steps had been taken for payment of compensation or to make the good loss by the opposite party. Therefore, this is not only deficiency in service but utter negligence and carelessness of the opposite party. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party though served with notice as not chosen to appear and contest the matter. It appears that the opposite party has no defence to make. Therefore, it has remained absent. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interests of the consumers. In this case the opposite party being a service provider has failed in its duty in delivering the consignment to the proper person. Therefore, the opposite party must be directed to pay Rs. 800/- as claimed by the complainant with interest. The amount claimed by the complainant is quite, just, fair and reasonable. The opposite party is bound to pay the compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service. In the result I proceed to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 3. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 800/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 12.08.2008 till payment / realization within 30 days from the date of this order. <br /> 4. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 5. The opposite party is directed to send the amount directly to the complainant by way of D.D. / Cheque with intimation to this forum.<br /> 6. Send the copy of the order to both the parties free of costs as statutory requirement.<br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23RD DAY OF JULY 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br />