FRANCH EXPRESS vs Natarajan

THE appeal is against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thanjavur in OP No. 189/99 on its file. THE opposite party is the appellant herein. THE case of the complainant was as follows: THE complainant is a carpenter and his earning as carpenter is supporting his family. His son Dhakshinamoorthy is a post-graduate. THE complainant wanted to make him an IAS or an IPS officer and for that purpose he had joined him in the coaching centre at Periyar Thidal, Chennai. While his son was at Chennai, the hall ticket for appearing for the Group I Services examination of the Tamil Nadu State Government fixing the date of examination as 6.6.99 was sent to the complainant''s address at Thiruserai, Kumbakonam. Immediately on 28.5.99, the complainant approached the appellant/opposite party for sending the hall ticket to the complainant''s son at Chennai. THE opposite party also agreed to despatch the hall ticket and the envelope containing the hall ticket on the same day. THE complainant had specifically told the opposite party that his son had to receive the hall ticket well in advance before the date of the examination viz., 6.6.99. THE opposite party promised to deliver the envelope before 29.5.99 to the complainant''s son and collected Rs. 10 for the services to be rendered. However, the envelope containing the hall ticket was not delivered either before 29.5.99 or at any time thereafter as a result of which his son could not appear for the examination on 6.6.99. This was a great disappointment and the very future of the complainant''s son has been affected. THE complainant''s dream that his son would have a bright future and the economic condition of the family would improve has come to naught. THE complainant suffered mental pain and agony. THE complainant spoke to his son on telephone and learnt that till 5.6.99 morning 9 O''clock the envelope had not reached him. THE complainant met the opposite party and asked for the reason for non-delivery of the envelope. He did not get any reply from the opposite party. THE complainant caused a notice to be issued on 18.6.99 for which the opposite party replied with false allegations. Because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant had suffered mental pain and agony which could be quantified at Rs. 40,000.

THE opposite party resisted the complaint contending inter alia as follows: Instead of sending the hall ticket to the coaching centre at Periyar Thidal, the complainant had sent it to his son Dhakshinamoorthy, C/o P. Radhakrishnan, 71, Pachayappa''s College Hostel, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai- 30; that address could not be the proper address of his son; that in Pachayappa''s College Hostel only the students of that college stayed; that even otherwise the details regarding the "C/o" student as to who he was and in which class he was studying were required; that because of lack of proper address the envelope could not be delivered. Further, though the opposite party had told the complainant that courier service could not be utilized for sending communications to students'' hostels, still the complainant insisted on the opposite party''s accepting the envelope for being sent to his son, that till 31.5.99 several attempts were made and as the complainant''s son could not be located, the envelope was returned to Kumbakonam on 1.6.99 and information had also been passed on to the complainant by means of a separate card; that the complainant had not come to the opposite party''s office and collected the returned envelope; that the complainant had made a similar claim against M/s. On Dot Courier Service and filed a case in O.P. No. 180/99 which was pending at the time the present complaint was going on; that the fault was that of the complainant inasmuch as the complainant sent the envelope without proper address; that the opposite party''s central office was at Erode and that the complaint without impleading the officers of the central office was not maintainable. On the side of the complainant, Exs. A-1 to A-4 were marked and on the side of the opposite party no document was produced.

The District Forum, framed the necessary points for consideration and held that there was deficiency in service inasmuch as it failed to deliver the envelope in time; that the explanation offered by it was not acceptable and that it was liable to compensate the complainant. By its order dated 15.2.2000, the District Forum directed the appellant/opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards compensation and Rs. 100 towards costs. It is as against that, the present appeal has been filed.

IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the opposite party could not be accused of deficiency in service; that the complainant is a Court-bird; that he had filed a similar case against another courier company; that the complainant had not furnished the address of his son with precision so as to enable the opposite party to deliver it within the stipulated time and that in any event the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs. 5,000 was excessive. According to the learned Counsel, as per the terms of the arrangement under which the opposite party accepted the envelope for being delivered to the complainant''s son, the complainant would not be entitled to more than Rs. 100. The last of the arguments is stated only to be rejected. We have already noticed that the opposite party did not choose to file any document before the District Forum. Now, in support of the contentions raised in the appeal, with regard to the maximum damages and the amount of compensation payable as Rs. 100, the shipper''s copy marked as Ex. A-4 is relied on. IT does not show that the complainant had accepted the terms and conditions set out therein. There is also nothing to show that the complainant was aware of any such condition. Even otherwise in our view, any such condition would not limit the liability of the opposite party. That apart, so far as deficiency in service is concerned, from the records it is clear that the complainant had given the correct address. Once it had accepted to deliver the envelope to the addressee, it was the duty of the opposite party to have done it with promptitude. This, the opposite party has failed to do. The date fixed for the examination was 6.6.99 and till 5.6.99 the envelope containing the hall ticket had not reached the complainant''s son. IT is the case of the opposite party that it notified the complainant through a card that because of the insufficiency of address the envelope could not be delivered. The case of the opposite party that the cover was returned to the complainant is also not substantiated. In these circumstances, no exception can be taken to the decision of the District Forum. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.