CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
C.C.548/2015
Dated this the 20th day of September 2019.
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. Hon’ble : President)
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Smt.Rose Jose, Hon’ble President
This petition is filed by the petitioner Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite parties to pay him Rs.4,500/- the value of the lost books sent through the opposite parties and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and damages caused to him due to the non-delivery of the books and also cost of the proceedings.
Petitioner’s case is that, he had entrusted a parcel of books worth Rs.4,500/- with the 1st opposite party on 31.07.2015 for delivering the same to his daughter Aswathi studying at Amritha College of Engineering Kayamkulam. The opposite parties collected Rs.150/- as service charge. The parcel was agreed to be delivered to his daughter within two days but it was not delivered as agreed. Though he contacted the office of the opposite parties on several occasions demanding to deliver the books there was no positive response from them. More over the opposite parties had given a very irresponsible reply to his request and showed arrogance towards him also.
It is stated that, though the opposite parties are offering best and speedy services to their customers in effect their service is not only inefficient but very poor and defective also. Their assurances are false and not reliable. The books are very important and intended for the examination of his daughter. Due to the non-delivery of the books, his daughter could not perform well in the examination and this caused untold mental pain and other hardships to him and to his daughter. The opposite parties have not even informed the fate of the parcel so far. They also didn’t care to send a reply to his lawyer notice. The indifferent and irresponsible act of the opposite parties after collecting a huge amount as service charge, amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on their part. Hence this petition seeking reliefs.
The opposite parties filed a combined version denying all the allegation of the petitioner as false and frivolous. It is contended that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case and also bad for misjoinder of necessary party. The value of the books is not mentioned in the complaint and it cannot be ascertained whether the books are new or not. So there is only a claim of Rs.150/-. This petition is intended to gain some amount illegally from them and to tarnish their goodwill and reputation. There is no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on their side as alleged and hence prayed to dismiss the petition with cost to them.
The petitioner filed affidavit in lieu of his petition and produced the receipt issued by the 1st opposite party dtd.31.07.2015 for the receipt of the consignment and the copy of the Lawyer notice dtd.21.08.2015 as evidence on his side and was marked as Exts.A1 & A2.
After filing affidavit by the petitioner, the case was posted for cross examination of the petitioner by the opposite parties. But the petitioner was continuously absent and so the opposite parties didn’t get chance to cross-examine the petitioner. In their version the opposite parties have a contention that the petitioner has not mentioned the value of the books in his complaint. But the said contention of the opposite parties are found not true or correct. The petitioner had mentioned the value of the books as Rs.4,500/- in his complaint. More over the case of the petitioner is that, the opposite parties have not delivered the books to his daughter at Kayamkulam as assured and has not even informed him the fate of the parcel so far. The said allegation of the petitioner was not specifically denied by the opposite parties in their version. Likewise the opposite parties have no case that they have delivered the parcel to the consignee or had returned the same to the consignor. Since the opposite parties have no such case, we are of the view that there is no need to take any adverse inference against the petitioner for not presenting himself to be cross-examined by the opposite parties. Moreover the opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the allegations of the petitioner also. The contention of the opposite parties that the value of the books cannot be ascertained since they are unaware whether the books are new or not is not acceptable because the value of a book depends on the importance of that book to the needy and not based on the fact whether it is new or not.
So, from the evidence it is found that the opposite parties have not delivered the parcel to the consignee or had returned the same to the consignor as alleged by the petitioner. The said act of the opposite parties in our view is deficiency in service on their part. No doubt the loss of the books which was very important for the examination of the petitioner’s daughter definitely caused much mental pain and other difficulties to the petitioner and to his daughter. So the opposite parties are liable to compensate the petitioner reasonably.
In the result the following order is passed.
The opposite parties are ordered to pay a total amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the total loss and suffering of the petitioner and Rs.2500/- as cost of the proceeding to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Failing which the whole amount will carry 9% interest from the date of default till payment.
Dated this 20th day of September 2019.
Date of filing: 27.10.2015.
SD/-MEMBER SD/-PRESIDENT
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1. Receipt issued by the Professional Couriers Calicut to the complainant
dtd.31.07.15.
A2. Notice sent on behalf of the complainant to the respondents with postal
receipt and acknowledgment card.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
Nil
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
