SPEED & SAFE COURIER SERVICES Vs. SATHEESHKUMAR N KARMATH HOUSE
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2010-10-6
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on October 15,2010

Speed And Safe Courier Services Appellant
VERSUS
Satheeshkumar N Karmath House Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS appeal prefers from the order passed by the Forum below in OP 414/03 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur dated 21st February ,2005. The respondents are the opposite parties.
(2.) IN short, the complainant alleged some complaint that he sent a parcel to his friend Mr. Suprathim Dutta of Calcutta through the appellants. According to the complainant parcel contained a blood pressure monitor and a G.S. mobile phone meant as gifts to his friend that the consignment was hard paper carton tied with a nylon tape and completely covered with white cloth stitched with thread. He paid Rs. 112 towards courier charges. But when the parcel reached the consignee, the packet was not intact, it was opened and it was seeing that the top portion cloth and carton paper were cut with a sharp object and the carton was opened. The mobile phone was found missing from the carton. His friend contacted the complainant and confirmed that two items were sent. Then he filed a written complaint to the Director, A.E.S. Courier Service at 8, Comae Street Building, Ground Floor, he is an authorized agent of the respondents in Calcutta on 27.6.2001. But they did not respond to the letter of Mr. Dutta. The addressee has not received the mobile phone till this date. He, on many times visited the 2nd opposite party and the agent at Vadakkancherry. There is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Rs. 10,000 was claimed towards cost of the mobile phone and further sum of Rsl0,000 claiming towards compensation for mental agony suffered by him and also costs.
(3.) THE opposite parties contended that the petition is bad for non -jointer of the friend of the petitioner to whom the parcel was sent. The signatory to the complaint is not competent to file the complaint and he is not a power of attorney holder. Since, the dispute pertains to period 2001 it is not possible to say to the complaint had booked a parcel as stated in the petition. Neither the complaint nor the beneficiaries ever voiced a complaint regarding the non -receipt of the mobile phone. The complainant has no case that the parcel was missing to the opposite parties. Further he has not declared the value of the contents at the time of booking the parcel. The complainant ought to have filed a complaint if his case is too. The opposite party denied the claim of the complainant that he had declared that the parcel contained a blood pressure monitor and G.S. mobile phone. They further contended that if his claim were true definitely the booking staff would have insisted for the copies of the bill and the documents pertaining to the mobile phone and made a note of the details to make sure that it is not a smuggled or contraband item. Though it is alleged in the complaint that the beneficiary complained to AES Courier Service (which is not in existence), no such complaint was forwarded to the respondents by the alleged AES Courier service or anybody else. The allegation is that the complaint visited the second opposite party agent at Vadakkanchery and complained about the matter. It was specifically contended that the opposite parties have never received any complaint or fax message frorn the complainant or the beneficiary. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 for the complainant and there is no evidence adduced by the appellant/opposite parties. The Forum below found that the petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 10,000 towards the value of the mobile phone and Rs, 3,000 towards compensation. The Petitioner is entitled to get costs of Rs. 600. Such a way, the Forum below allowed the complaint.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.