Date of Filing :24.07.2017
Date of Disposal :05.11.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 05.11.2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No.1571/2017
M/s Professional Couriers
Domestic and International
Courier and Cargo Shipping Centre
Bangalore Road
Challakere Town-577 522
Rep. by its Manager
Sri P.Pradeep Kumar
S/o P.Shanmukappa
Aged about 52 years
(By Mr C H Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate) Appellant
-Versus-
Smt. Akkamahadevi
W/o Sri Jayakumar
Asst. Master
Govt. Higher Primary School
Pitlai, Hiriyur Taluk
Chitradurga - 577 501 Respondent
(By Mr Yathish J. Nadig, Advocate)
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by OP aggrieved by the Order dated 28.06.2017 passed in Consumer Complaint No.106/2016 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chitradurga (for short, the District Forum).
2. The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the District Forum.
3. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers and records of District Forum and heard learned counsel for the parties to the appeal.
Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be:
Whether impugned order dated 28.06.2017 passed in CC No. 106/2016 does call any interference of this Commission for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?
4. It is found from the appeal papers one Smt.Akkamahadevi, W/o Mr.Jayakumar was working as Assistant Master in Government Higher Primary School, Pitlali Village, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District had sent documents in sealed cover through OP Branch at Challakere addressed to one Sri G. Somanna, Superintendent of Establishment Section No.3, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Public Instruction, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore. She has paid Rs.20/- towards delivery charges and to find support produced Ex-A1, Original Receipt dated 18.09.2014 issued by OP which in fact is not disputed. The Complainant had alleged against OP that sealed cover sent on 18.09.2014 address to the said person was not delivered to the addressee and due to non-delivery of cover sent on 18.09.2014 for her employer she was suspended from service w.e.f 31.12.2014. It was her case that she had sent vital medical records in the said sealed cover on 18.09.2014, they are medical records, namely Xerox copy of the appointment order of Primary High School Teachers in Bellary District dated 04.04.2008, appointment letter after scrutinising the documents issued by the appointing authority and Block Education Officer, Department of Public Instructions, Bellary, Letter pertains to verification of original documents of the complainant, certificate of disability issued by Medical Board, District Hospital, Chitradurga, copy of disability certificate dated 24.03.2008, Memo of transfer issued by the Commissioner, Department of Public Instructions, Bangalore dated 08.07.2004 transferring complainant from Talur, Sirguppa Taluk, Bellary District to Pitlali, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga District, Work satisfactory Memo issued by the Block Education Officer, Siraguppa, Bellary District dated 21.06.2010.
5. Learned counsel for Respondent/Complainant submits that all these vital documents were sent in sealed cover dated 18.09.2014 were not delivered by OP and as a result, she was kept under suspension on 20.12.2014 and the OP has failed to return the cover containing the sealed cover to the addressor and issued document as per Ex-B1 on 08.01.2015. In other words, from 18.09.2014 till 08.01.2015 OP has retained the said sealed cover containing vital documents without informing the addressor namely the complainant which has been dealt very seriously by the DF and held OP has rendered deficiency in service and as a result passed impugned order. On the contrary learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that DF awarded damages beyond Rs.20/- which the DF did not have jurisdiction and to find support relied on decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case between Bharathi Knitting Company Vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 704 wherein held – The cover containing the documents did not reach the destination. Though the duplicate copies were subsequently sent by the date of receipt of consignment, the season was over. Resultantly, the consignee agreed to pay a lesser amount instead of the invoice value. The appellant therefore, laid a complaint before the State Commission claiming difference of the loss incurred by it which was ordered. In our view, since facts as found from complaint filed before the District Forum is quite different in order to award compensation beyond Rs.20/-. Learned counsel further placed decision in the case between Blue Dart Express Limited Vs Stephen Livera decided by Hon’ble National Commission wherein the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra has been followed. It is to be noted herein on facts, District Forum found address of the complainant is the Government Higher Primary School which is situated near by Hiriyur Taluk, which can easily trace out and if it is not traced out. The enquiry reveals OP never delivered the consignment to the addressee or returned to the consigner and in such circumstances DF held, OP has rendered deficiency of service which in our view has to be maintained.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent submits the facts of the case are quite different from the facts of the decesions cited supra and in our view as DF found facts of the case on hand appears to be different considering the serious consequences of non delivery of the consignment, resultant in suspending the complainant from services could be justifiable as the service provider has certain obligations towards consigner cannot consider very lightly. In such circumstances, the DF held such lapses on the part of service provider amounts to rendering deficiency of service which could not be interfered with in the appeal.
7. Learned counsel for Respondent/Complainant submits, had these documents sent were consigned and the employer had scrutinized, she would not have been suspended from services and the OP being professional courier has made any efforts to return the consignment to the complainant on non delivery and he has retained had issued Ex-B1 delivery sheet dated 18.12.2015 is nothing but has no serious about the professional services, for which he was agreed with complainant to delivery of the cover to the addressee and he has failed to discharge his duties or obligation towards the complainant.
8. In the above such circumstances, we are of the view that District Commission has rightly held OP had rendered deficiency of services but awarding of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for non-delivery of the consignment to the addressee has to be held on higher side and even awarding of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and physical inconvenience and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings also has to be held on higher side, which needs to be modified in the following terms:
9. The Appeal is allowed in part and modified in the following terms:
The OP is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation and do pay Rs.5,000/-towards cost of the litigation within 60 days failing which even such amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of default till realisation. Accordingly appeal stands disposed off.
10. Amount in deposit is directed to be transfer to the District Commission for the needful.
11. Remit back LCR forthwith to the District Commission.
12. Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned for their information.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*s
