State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
India Post, Department Of Posts vs Prahalad S/O. Madhava Rao on 29 March, 2012
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF MARCH 2012 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SMT.RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Appeal No.170/2012 India Post, Department of Posts GPO, Bangalore 560001 Rep. by its Post Master Also at: India Post, Department of Posts, Basavanagudi Post Office Rep. by its Post Master. (By Shri/Smt B. Pramod) Prahalad S/o. Madhava Rao R/at No. 21, Old No. 72/1, Model House, 3rd Street, Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560001. Opposite Party before the DF .Appellant/s -Versus- Complainant before the DF .Respondent/s O R D E R
HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd December 2011 passed by the First Additional District Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore whereby the complaint filed by the respondent came to be allowed directing the appellant / OP herein to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 10.8.2011 till paying within 30 days from the date of the order. The cheque No.286801 for Rs.5,230/- dated 16.11.2011 submitted by the complainant shall be refunded to the Ops and to pay Rs.2000/- to the respondent towards litigation expenses. Assailing the same, the appellant has come up with this appeal on various grounds.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records. The point for determination in this appeal is to consider is that whether the order passed by the District Forum requires any interference?
3. As could be seen from the materials the respondent / complainant delivered a parcel package containing 41 pairs of dance constumes (Bharathanatyam dresses) estimated worth Rs.1,25,000/- that is Artificial jewellery of 20 long pearl chain, 10 sets of gold plated ear rings, 14 Nos of gold plated close nick chain, 14 Nos of gold plated long chain, 10 Nos of gold plated mate, 10 Nos of plated noise rings, 10 Nos of gold plated waist belt, 10 Nos of gold plated head sets worth Rs.11,750/- to the OP for courier transfer to be delivered at Australia to Mr.Pradeep Kumar but the said articles were not delivered. When he contacted Pradeep Kumar, it was informed on 22.8.2011 it has not been delivered.
4. Though the said articles booked for delivery on 10.8.2011 and it was dispatched from Basavangudi Post Office, Bangalore and expected to deliver the same to Sri Pradeep Kumar at Australia on 29.8.2011 the date on which the dance programme was arranged.
But after the dance programme the materials were delivered on 21.10.2011 that too the material returned to the complainant which was sent through OP and the appellant / OP not produced any materials to show that they were delivered at Australia. There was a delay of 72 days. The appellant / OP never stated what are the materials that were delivered at Australia. Hence the respondent filed the complaint.
5. Of course the appellant herein who is the OP before the District filed its version admitting about the booking of the article on 10.8.2011by the respondent to be delivered at Australia. But after several correspondences were made ultimately the baggage was delivered to the addressee at Australia only on 21.10.2011. For the delay in delivering of the goods, the appellant / OP has sent a cheque for Rs.5,230/- to the respondent on 12.10.2011that too after filing the complaint.
6. The DF in paragraph (8) of its order observed that but the parcel which is delivered was opened and dress materials are not thre which is sent from here. And alsothe purpose of sending the said dance customs materials to the Australia is not fulfilled because of the late delivery. The programme was on 29.8.2011, the parcel sent by me though the opposite by speed post on 10.8.2011.
7. There is a sheer negligence on the part of the appellant / OP as they did not deliver the same well in advance which amounts to deficiency in service. Of course, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the parcel was dispatched to the International Speed Post Centre, Mumbai on the day of the booking of the speed post that is on 10.8.2011. On the very same day Mumbai International Speed Post Centre dispatched to Australia on 11.8.2011 through Singapore Airlines. But the delay if any while transporting the parcel by the Singapore Airlines Authorities for which the appellant is not responsible.
8. When the respondent booked the dance articles worth Rs.1,25,000/- to be delivered at Australia and paid the courier charges of Rs.10,435/- and when the same was not delivered well in advance the same amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the appellant / OP. Therefore, in our view the District Forum is right in awarding Rs.50,000/- by way of damages with interest at 12% per annum from 10.8.2011 till payment. The finding recorded by the District Forum in allowing the complaint does not require any interference. Accordingly, we pass the following:
O R D E R Appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. The order passed by the District Forum in Complaint No.1927/2011 is confirmed.
The amount deposited by the appellant / OP in this appeal shall be transferred to the DF to enable the DF to pay the same to the respondent / complainant after due notice to him.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Nrr*