State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Manager, Professional Courier vs A.Raja, S/O S.Ayyavu on 16 September, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT PUDUCHERRY FRIDAY, the 16th day of September, 2011 First Appeal No.6/2011 The Manager, Professional Courier, Administrative Office, No.167, Kamatchiamman Koil Street, Puducherry .. Appellant Vs. A.Raja, S/o S.Ayyavu, C/o Susai, No.7, II Cross Street, Parasuramapuram, Villianur, Puducherry. Respondent (On appeal against the order passed by the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint No.97 of 2010, dated 31.12.2010) Consumer Complaint No.97 of 2010 A.Raja, S/o S.Ayyavu, C/o Susai, No.7, II Cross Street, Parasuramapuram, Villianur, Puducherry. Complainant Vs. The Manager, Professional Courier, Administrative Office, No.167, Kamatchiamman Koil Street, Puducherry .. Opposite Party BEFORE: HONBLE JUSTICE THIRU J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR PRESIDENT TMT.K.K.RITHA, MEMBER
THIRU K.ELUMALAI, MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:
Tvl.A.Vasakan & J.Arulmozhi, Advocates, Puducherry.
FOR THE RESPONDENT:
Thiru. S.Vimal, Advocate, Puducherry.
O R D E R (By Honble Justice President) The first appeal filed by the opposite party is against the order of the District Forum, Puducherry in Consumer Complaint no.97/2010, dated 31.12.2010 in allowing the claim as prayed by the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant reads as follows: On 16.11.2009 vide receipt No PON 072699, the complainant sent the documents in original, namely,
i) Identification and attendance certificate of the complainant issued by Miltex Engineering (P) Limited, dt.19.01.2005
ii) Certificate of Apprenticeship of the Complainant issued by Miltex Engineering (P) Ltd, dt. 19.01.2005.
iii) Diploma in M.S. Office (DMO) of the complainant issued by New Computer Education, Puducherry dated 20.07.2005
iv) Life Saver Certificate of the complainant issued by Usha Fire Safety Equipments (P) Ltd., dt. 28.11.2007.
v) Community Certificate of the complainant issued by Tahsildar, Peraiyur, dated 23.02.2009.
through the opposite partys courier service to be delivered to Mr.S.Duraipandi at Madurai.
3. However, to the complainants shock, the certificates dispatched through the opposite party never reached the addressee. After a lapse of a month, on 29.12.2009, the opposite party sent a letter admitting their fault and deficiency in service towards the complainant by reporting that the consignment sent through them was lost.
4. Thus the complainant suffered physical loss, hardship and untold mental agony and monetary loss.
5. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to issue an advocate notice on 15.02.2010 calling upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with future interest at 12% p.a. towards compensation and damages for the loss of complainants valuable certificates as the opposite party exposed their deficiency in service by not delivering the consignment to the addressee due to loss in the transit.
6. Since there was no response from the opposite party for the said notice, the complainant filed the petition to redress his grievance.
7. Though the opposite party received a notice from the District Forum to counter the claim of the complainant, if any, they have not chosen to defend their case. As a result, they were set exparte
8. The complainant marked eleven documents to sustain his case. Therefore, the District Forum on the basis of allegations in the complaint coupled with the documentary evidence passed the order as claimed by the complainant.
9. The claim of the complainant is as follows:
i) Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages for the deficiency in service by loosing complainants cover containing his original certificates;
ii) Rs.2,00,000/- towards physical stress, hardship and mental agony and monetary loss
iii) Rs.3,000/- cost of litigation.
10. The present first appeal is presented against the said award.
11. The counsel for the appellant questioned the validity and propriety of the order of the District forum without raising any valid defence and prayed for re-trial.
12. However, the counsel for the complainant resisted the claim of the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
13. The points for determination are:
1) Whether or not the complainant entrusted the consignment on 16.11.2009 to the opposite party for delivery?
2) Whether or not the consignment entrusted to the opposite party was lost in the transit?
3) Whether or not the originals of Ex.C1 to C5 were really sent or original of Ex.C5 only sent through opposite party courier service for delivery to the addressee?
4) Whether or not the complainant was denied of his alleged new appointment due to loss of original documents in transit?
5) Whether or not there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for the work entrusted to them?
6) Whether or not the order of the District forum is liable to be set aside for reconsideration by way of re-trial?
7) Whether or not the order of the District Forum in awarding compensation is excessive?
8) To what other relief the parties are entitled?
13. POINTS No.1 and 2:
It is the case of the complainant that the original documents sent on 16.11.2009 through the opposite party courier service to be delivered to Mr.S.Duraipandi of Madurai were lost in the transit. There is no dispute in this regard. In fact, the opposite party admitted that the said consignment was lost in transit and sent a letter to the complainant to the effect that Ex.C8 is a proof to this effect. Ex.C6 is the receipt for entrustment of consignment to opposite party. IN such view of the fact, we are constrained to answer these points in favour of the complainant.
14. POINTS No.3 and 4:
Ex.C5 is the Community Certificate issued on 23.02.2009. As per Ex.C7, hall ticket intimation, the Community Certificate should have been issued on or after 01.06.2009. So, it is apparent that original of Ex.C5 requires renewal, for which, there is every possibility for the complainant to send the same to the addressee for renewal. At the same time, there was no necessity for the complainant to send the original of Ex.C1 to C4 for renewal, as they relate to his educational qualification certificate and employment certificate. In such view of the fact, it is only for the complainant to make a specific pleadings with reasons in the complaint in this regard, which necessitated him in sending the originals of Exs.C1 to C4 also for renewal. Even if he make out a specific pleadings in that time, it should be an absurd only, as the same does not require any renewal as per Ex.C7. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has make out a case of sending only the original of Ex.C5 by post through opposite party which sustained loss by transit.
15. As per Ex.C7, the complainant required original documents only at the time of oral interview. The original documents are not required for written examination. Only successful candidates in the written examination are eligible for the oral interview. But, the complainant failed to produce any document to show that he was prevented from participating in the oral interview with original documents, though he was successful in the written examination. The complainant failed to produce any documents to show that he was successful in the written examination. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant was not denied of his alleged new appointment due to loss of original documents in transit.
16. So, we answered these issues accordingly.
17. POINT NO.5:
It is proved that the consignment entrusted to the opposite party courier service to be delivered at Madurai by the complainant was lost in transit. The opposite party admitted the fact by sending a letter in this regard to the complainant. But the opposite party though admitted about the loss of consignment under dispute, did not come forward to compensate the loss sustained to the complainant in this regard. The fact of loss of the consignment in the transit exposes the deficiency in service of the opposite party. The opposite party did not dispute his deficiency in service with regard to the work entrusted to them by the complainant for which they have received fees in this regard. In such view of the fact, we are constrained to answer this point in favour of the complainant.
18. ISSUE No.6:
The appellant/opposite party failed to submit any kind of defence to confront the allegations of the complainant. Neither did they counter the allegations contained in the notice Ex.C9 nor submitted any valid defence in the grounds of appeal. So, we are of the considered view that there is no valid prima facie defence submitted by the opposite party for order re-trial of the complaint after setting aside the order of the District Forum. Hence, we answer this point against the opposite party.
19. POINT No.7:
The District Forum awarded compensation to an extent of Rs.5,00,000/- for the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party coupled with the cost of the original documents lost in the transit. However, the complainant failed to submit the mode/method in arriving at the said figure to claim compensation against the opposite party. More so, the complainant did not give any evidence to sustain his claim. No witness was examined on the side of the complainant to prove the alleged compensation amount sustained to him by any modes. But, the District Forum without looking into this deficiency in evidence on the side of the complainant, coupled with non applying of its mind, allowed the claim as prayed by the complainant exposing its lack in knowledge in this regard. So, we are of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the District Forum is excessive.
20. However, the complainant is entitle to compensation for mental agony and for loss of consignment, namely, original certificate of Ex.C5 in the transit. However, the complainant has got remedy to get this document in original from the concerned persons by applying afresh stating the above reasons. In such view of the fact we are of the considered view that the compensation amount awarded by the District Forum is on the higher side. However, the complainant is entitle to compensation to some extent due to loss of his original documents coupled with the deficiency in service exposed by the appellant/opposite party.
21. Since we have already held that the opposite party has exposed their deficiency in service for the work entrusted to them by the complainant, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation for the same. So far the opposite party has not spell out their offer to pay compensation monetarily for their act of deficiency. However, there is every possibility for the complainant to get a new Community Certificate from the competent authority. It is a time consuming process involving expenses monetarily coupled with physical and mental stain. So, the opposite party is bound to compensate monetarily to the complainant in this regard. At the same time, the award of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation without any reason by the District Forum, is uncalled for and too excessive and the same is liable to be reduced to a greater extent for the reasons stated above.
22. The cause of action for this case arose in November, 2009. The consumer complaint filed in the year 2010. The first appeal filed in the year 2011. Still the dispute between the parties is not settled. The mental pain and sufferings of the complainant has not come to an end. The complainant further suffered monetarily to meet the litigation expenses. Therefore, we are of the view that awarding a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) as compensation would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, we reduce the compensation amount awarded by the District forum from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.25,000/- for the reasons enumerated above. Thus, we answer this point accordingly.
23. POINT No.8:
In the result, the appeal is allowed partly in the following manner and the parties have to bear their respective costs.
District Forum Award Modified in the Appeal
1) Rs.5,00,000/- compensation with Rs.25,000/- with interest at interest at 12% p.a. 7% p.a.
2) Rs.3,000/-towards litigation expenses Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses Thus, the order of the District Forum is modified accordingly and the complainant is entitle to the modified award amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with interest at 7% p.a. from the date of the complaint till the date of realization together with the cost of litigation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three-Thousand only).
Dated this the 16th day of September, 2011 (J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR) PRESIDENT (K.K.RITHA) MEMBER (K.ELUMALAI) MEMBER