Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/2/2020

M/s.Liptuz Technologies, Rep.by its Power of Attoney&Business Development Manager, N.Ganesh, S/o.E.Narayanan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

ST Courier, Head Office, Rp by its Manager and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s G.Karthik

25 May 2023

ORDER

                                                                                                                       Date of Complaint Filed: 27.12.2019

                                                                                                                        Date of Reservation     : 16.05.2023

                                                                                                                         Date of Order              : 25.05.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.2/2020

THURSDAY,THE 25^thDAY OF MAY 2023

M/s. Liptuz Technologies,

Represented by its Power of Attorney,

& Business Development Manager,

N.Ganesh,

S/o. E. Narayanan,

Having office at

No.156A, Sriram Apartments,

Door No.A4, Choolaimedu High Road,

Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094.                                                                                                 …Complainant.

..Vs..

1.The Manager,

   ST Courier, Head Office,

   No.199, Hariyan Street,

   C.Pallavaram, Chennai – 600 043.

 

2.Mr. Arul,

   Jayam Enterprises,

   Franchise ST Courier,

   Sowrastra 6^th Street,

   Choolaimedu, Chennai – 600 094.

 

3.Mr. Baktha,

   Akshya Agencies,

   No.387, Arcot Road,

   Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024.                                                                                               .. Opposite Parties.

                                                                                                  * * * * *

Counsel for the Complainant               : M/s. G. Karthik

Counsel for 1^st& 2^ndOpposite Parties   : M/s. M.Jaikumar,

                                                                 Mageshwaraiha

Counsel for the 3^rd Opposite Party      : Exparte on 04.02.2020

 

On perusal of records and having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and having treated the Written Arguments as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

(i)  The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to return back the amount of Rs.240/- with interest of 24% from 18.10.2019 to till the date of realization and to pay a cost of Digital Card for Telephone for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with future interest at the rate o 24% p.a from the date of filing this complaint to till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.7,57,560/- towards the loss of business with future interest at the rate of 24% p.a from the date of filing this complaint to till the date of realization of the amount and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the physical and mental agony with future interest at the rate of 24% p.a from the date of filing this complaint to till the date of realization along with cost.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant is dealing with IT infrastructure services. The Complainant sent important and most valuable "Digital Card for Telephone" to deliver Scapa Tapes India Pvt Ltd, Gurgaun, Haryana-122052, through 3^rd Opposite Party on 18.10.2019 and paid a sum of Rs.240 by way of cash and receipt was given with the consignment No. 63133239282. At the time of booking the 3^rd Opposite Party informed that he is the agent of 2^nd Opposite Party and it was reflected in the receipt which is showing the branch code MAA CMD CHOOLAIMEDU.

2.     The goods booked for delivery was not delivered to the recipient address after 13 days. Their customer contacted them and conformed that the goods booked through Opposite Parties' courier was not received by them even after 10 days. Hence they contacted the Opposite Parties from 24.10.2019 to 12.11.2019 in person, customer care and Email to  gm@stcourier.com, info@stcourier.com and track@stcourier.com and also they have spoken with various persons through mobile phones.

3.     There is no response from the Opposite Parties even after the complaint was made. The online status of the goods booked through the Opposite Parties' courier has not reached because there is no service for Opposite Parties. At the time of booking 3^rd Opposite Party conforms that the courier would be delivered at the mentioned address and the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties accepted the same by receiving and sent the consignment to the destination state.

4.     Due to the non-delivery of the consignment to their customer, they informed that they had cancelled their business with Complainant which caused huge loss to them due to the negligent act and poor customer care of Opposite Parties service. Even after complaint given to the customer care, they did not come forward to take action at right time and further delayed the delivery of goods to their customer or the same was returned to them. Due to the negligence and deficiency of service Opposite Parties caused wrongful loss on Complainant and also spoiled Complainant's name in front of his customers by causing mental agony with huge loss to Complainant.

5.     All these acts were due to the high degree of deficiency in service on proof of the Opposite Parties, because of which the Complainant was put to severe monetary loss, physical strain and mental agony. Subsequently they had issued a legal notice dated 12.11.2019 through his counsel stating that the Opposite Party is liable to pay Rs.1,50,00,000/-. The above legal notice was received by the Opposite Parties on 13.11.2019 and 14.11.2019 left with no response till date from the Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint.

II. Written Version Of Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are in brief:

6.     The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties denies all the allegations contained in the paragraphs therein as false, frivolous, baseless, besides being highly motivated and deplorable.

7.     It was alleged in the complaint that the Complainant availed the service of the Opposite Parties to send important and most valuable digital card for telephone through third Opposite Party, which was false, if the Complainant at the time of booking had informed that the consignment is important and most valuable digital card the Opposite Parties would not have accepted the same, as the valuable goods are not accepted for transit as a principle and procedures followed by their company. It is submitted that the Complainant did not disclosed that the parcel contained important and most valuable digital card and if would have informed the same would be booked under PRIORITY category which is costlier.

8.     Even in the invoice given by the Opposite Parties which was filed as one of the document there is no mentioning about the contents of the parcel which would prove that the Complainant claim that the parcel contained important and most valuable digital card, was absolutely false and had made a wrongful claim. The 3^rd Opposite Party was only authorized to receive documents and the 3^rd Opposite Party also informed that the parcel contained document. They do not accept the service of valuables goods strictly because any misplacement or loss or theft of valuable goods would cause huge sufferings to their customers and it is highly risk as the parcel were sent from one state to another. For the said reason they never accept the goods with valuable items and only documents. That for sending the important and most valuable digital card there is separate process which contains insurance and booked under PRIORITY category.

9.     They do not send High Valuable goods, Dangerous Goods, Unauthorized Goods, Leak able Goods High risk Goods and even assuming small valuable goods the sender should make insurance coverage for the said goods for sending through courier service. They took utmost care to deliver the consignment as much as possible however due to the act of the consignee or consignor the consignment could not be delivered. The claim of the Complainant that they had sent important and most valuable digital card without any insurance coverage is not believable and the entire responsibility is on the Complainant assuring that the Parcel sent through courier service does not contain valuable goods as the Parcel was packed by the sender of the goods (Consignor) and not by them.

10.    There is quite naturally risk involved in transport of consignment as the loss or damage are caused due to the mistake of the consignee or consignor, acts of God, occurrence of any case beyond the control, accident of the vehicle, theft and other reasons. For the above said reasons high valuable Goods are not accepted by the courier. In simple terms for the profit of hundred rupees no company would take risk of handling goods worth several lakhs.

11.    The allegation that there was no response is absolutely false and they always have great respect towards their customers and they used to discharge their duties to the full satisfaction of their customers. The Complainant was duly informed that the consignment was delivered through local courier agency in Haryana however they could not obtained proof of delivery hence online status did not show as no service. The officials of the 1^st Opposite Party personally met and informed that they had not committed any deficiency in service and as per the information received from the local courier agency at Haryana they had delivered the consignment. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

III. The 3^rd Opposite Party was set ex parte:

        Notice was sent to the 3^rd Opposite Party and was duly served to the 3^rd Opposite Party. Despite the notice being served to the 3^rd Opposite Party had failed to appear before this Commission either in person or through Advocate on the hearing date and not filed any written version on their side.  Hence the 3^rdOpposite Party was called absent and set ex-parte. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.

IV.    The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A 8.The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties had submitted his proof affidavit and no document marked on his side.  On both side written arguments were filed.

V.  Points for Consideration:-

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2.Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

3. To what other relief, the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1 :

12.    It is an undisputed fact that the Complainant on 18.10.2019 had booked a consignment to be sent through Courier of the 1^st Opposite Party to Gurgaun, Haryana. It is also not in dispute that the said consignment was collected by the 3^rd Opposite Party and sent through the 2^nd Opposite Party who is an agent of the 1^st Opposite Party. The dispute arose when the above consignment booked by the Complainant was not delivered to their customer at the destination state, which was confirmed by their customer that they did not received the consignment.

13.    The contentions of the Complainant are that inspite of their repeated follow ups in person, through customer care of the Opposite Parties and mails sent to the Opposite Parties from 24.10.2019 to 12.11.2019, the Opposite Parties had failed to response and had failed to confirm whether the consignment was delivered to the destination point, if not delivered the should have been returned to them, which the Opposite Parties had not done. The negligent act of the Opposite Parties caused them huge monetory loss as their customer had cancelled their business order and made them suffer with mental agony and their name was got spoiled in front of their customer. As the consignment booked was a digital card used for telephone worth of Rs.50,000/-, due to the negligent act of the Opposite Parties they have not only lost their business even the value of the said consignment. Further the Opposite Parties had failed to provide the proof of delivery, though it has been pleaded in the written version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties that it was informed to them that the consignment was delivered through local courier in Haryana but the Opposite Parties could not obtain proof of delivery as a result the Online status was shown as no service. The Opposite Parties had not produced any material evidence to prove that the consignment was delivered to their customer. As their customer had confirmed that they have not received the consignment, the same was not returned to them, by the Opposite Parties.

14.    The contentions of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are that if at all they were aware that the consignment contains important and most valuables they would not have booked as an ordinary booking and as the 3^rd Opposite Party had informed them that the consignment contains document, the same was booked. If at all they were aware that the consignment contains important and most valuable digital card, they would have been booked on priority basis covering insurance, which the Complainant had failed to reveal and had made a wrongful claim. Further they do not send high valuables goods, dangerous goods, Unauthorised goods, leakable goods, high risk goods through their courier service. Further there are risk involved in transit of consignment like loss or damage caused due to mistake of consignee or consignor, act of god, occurrence of any case beyond control, accident of the vehicle, theft and other reasons. For a profit of hundred rupees no company would take risk of handling goods worth several lakhs. Further contended that they deny the allegation of the Complainant that they had not responded them are false, as they had sent the consignment through local courier in Haryana and as per the information received from the local courier agency at Haryana the consignment was delivered, but they could not obtain proof of delivery hence their Online status shown as no service, which fact was informed to the Complainant. 

15.    On discussions made above and on perusal of records, the Complainant had sent a quotation dated 15.09.2019 for supply of certain items including Syntel Neos extension digital card connected with telecommunications to one Scapa Tapes India Pvt Ltd as found in Ex.A-1 and from Ex.A-2 the said Scapa Tapes India Pvt Ltd had placed a purchase order dated 18.09.2019 with the Complainant including Syntel Neos extension digital card. As per Ex.A-3 the Complainant had raised a Tax Invoice dated 17.10.2019 in the name of said Scapa Tapes India Pvt Ltd for the supply of Syntel Neos Digital Extension Card for a sum of Rs.50,000/- inclusive of applicable Tax. From Ex.A-4 the Consignor Copy of the Consignment booked through 1^st Opposite Party’s courier on 18.10.2019 to the said Scapa Tapes India Pvt Ltd, Haryana – 122052 and a sum of Rs.240/- was collected for delivery of the said consignment by the Opposite Parties, wherein the Branch code of the 1^st Opposite Party is mentioned as MAA CMD Choolaimedu. As per Ex.A-5 Track report of the 1^st Opposite Party, the Consignment that has booked on 18.10.2019 was processed and forwarded to Chennai Guindy Hub, on the same day processed and forwarded from Chennai Guindy Hub to Gurgaon, Haryana, thereafter on 20.10.2019 the Consignment was found to be received at Delhi Hub, and on 24.10.2019 the consignment was found sent for delivery and counter booked at returned from Delhi and the same was processed for return from Delhi Hub to Chennai Guindy Hub in the delivery status. Further from Ex.A-5 it is clear that it was mentioned that the consignment was undelivered and the reasons for un-delivery was No service. Ex.A-6 the mail Communications sent by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party. Ex.A-7 is the Legal Notice dated 12.11.2019 sent to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 mentioning the consignment was not delivered at the destination point and claiming compensation and the said notice was found to be delivered to the Opposite Parties 1 to 3. Ex.A-8 is the Special Power of attorney dated 27.12.2019 executed by Mrs.G.Jothilakshmi, Proprietrix of M/s.Liptus Technologies nominating N.Ganesh to file and proceed with the present complaint.

16.    It is clear from Ex.A-5 that the consignment booked by the Complainant was not delivered and the same was found to be returned to the 1^st Opposite Party’s Courier Office at Chennai, hence the contention of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 that the Consignment was delivered at Haryana, the destination point as per the information given by the Local Courier through which the consignment was sent by the 1^st Opposite Party, further no material evidence has been produced by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 in respect of the consignment booked and sent through Local Courier as there was no service of them to Haryana. Further from Ex.A-5 when the consignment was found to be returned to 1^st Opposite Party’s Office and as it is held that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 had not delivered, it is clear that the consignment was not retuned to the Complainant. With regard to the contentions of the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 that the Complainant had not revealed the fact the consignment sent was a valuable item as it was informed by the 3^rd Opposite Party who is none other than their Collection agent that the consignment contains documents and they do not receive valuable items as regular bookings, but only on priority basis covering Insurance, is not acceptable, as it is duty cast upon on the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to confirm about the contents of the consignment before booking and to inform about the risk involved in the transit of consignment as pleaded in their written version, even otherwise the said consignment was not delivered at the destination point. From Exs.A-1 and A-2 it would be clear that the Complainant had sent a quotation for supply of certain items and the purchase order was placed by a Company, M/s.Scapa Tapes India Pvt Ltd for the supply of Syntel Neos Digital card, to which company the consignment was booked as per Ex.A-3 through 1^st Opposite Party’s courier as per Ex.A-4. Hence it would be clear that the Complainant had sent Syntel Neos Digital Extension Card worth of Rs.50,000/- inclusive of applicable tax, which is proved to be undelivered at the destination point or returned to the Complainant, by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2. Knowing well that the 1^st Opposite Party did not have service at the destination point had collected the consignment of the Complainant, is estopped from questioning the contents of the consignment booked by the Complainant. Having failed to deliver the consignment booked by the Complainant, at the destination point, by the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and having failed to return the consignment booked to the Complainant that has been found to be retuned by the 1^st Opposite Party’s courier from Delhi to Chennai Guindy Hub, it is clear that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 had acted lethargically and negligently in delivering the consignment at the destination point at Haryana. The said act of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 clearly amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service and had caused mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos. 2 and 3 :-

17.    As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties 1 to 3, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,240/-, being the consignment booking amount of Rs.240/- and the cost of Digital Card for Telephone worth about Rs.50,000/- together with interest @9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 27.12.2019 to till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony along with cost of Rs.5,000/-. As the Complainant had not produced any authenticated material evidence to substantiate their claim of huge business loss, the Complainant is not entitled for the loss of business and also not entitled any other relief/s, except the above reliefs granted.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties  1 to 3 are directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.50,240/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Two Hundred and Forty Only) (being the consignment booking amount of Rs.240/- and the cost of Digital Card for Telephone worth about Rs.50,000/-) together with interest @9% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e., 27.12.2019 to till the date of realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony along with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five Thousand Only) to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 25^th of May 2023.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                        MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	15.09.2019	Quotation of the Complainant to the Scapa Tapes India Pvt Ltd
Ex.A2	18.09.2019	Purchase order issued by the Scapa Tapes India Pvt Ltd to the Complainant
Ex.A3	17.10.2019	Invoice for Digital Card for Telephone
Ex.A4	18.10.2019	Booking receipt issued by the Opposite Parties
Ex.A5	18.10.2019	Online delivery status of the consignment
Ex.A6	01.11.2019 to 11.11.2019	E-mail reminders by the Complainants to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A7	12.11.2019	Legal Notice along with AD card and online delivery printout
Ex.A8	23.12.2019	Special Power of Attorney

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

-NIL-

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT