P Narayanankutty Astrologer vs Uptron India Ltd

IN this complaint, under Section 17 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs from the opposite party -couriers.

THE complainant -a Woman IPS officer, who was invited to attend the Annual Conference of International Association for Mass Communication Research (IAMCR) at Gaurajaa Saopaolo in Brazil and to present a paper - a study of Marital Disharmony - the Role of Police and Media Response, sent the papers proposed to be presented by the opposite party - couriers on 13.7.92, so as to reach the destination, that is, Stockholm, Sweden. The opposite party promised that the said document would reach Stockholm within a period, of 4 days therefrom, that is, on or before 17.7.1992. The said document did not reach the destination as promised by the opposite party.

THE complainant paid a sum of Rs. 600/ -, as per Ex.C -6, to the opposite party for the said service.

THE complainant received an International Fax message from Prof. Medelien Klegerg, as per Ex. C -11, dated 29.7.1992 stating that the papers were not received by them till then and requested to immediately contact the opposite party -couriers. The O.P. on contacting them, informed her that they had handed over the said letter sent by her to one Johnson at Stockholm on 22.7.1992. The complainant on receipt of the said Telex Fax sent another copy of entire papers to Sweden on 31.7.92. She also sent another copy to Delhi to arrange it to send through the Indian Ambassador to Stockholm, Sweden.

TINE complainant further averred that on 3.8.92, Prof. Medelien Klegerg called upon her and told her that the papers reached her hands and also telex copy but unfortunately it was too late to do anything.

IT is the further case of the complainant that due to non -receiving of the papers in time, the complainant lost an opportunity to attend to such an International Conference, that is, the Conference to be held in Brezil d uring the period between 16.8.1992 and 21.8.1992, thereby she lost an opportunity of furthering her promotional career. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought compensation from the opposite party -couriers, as referred above. The opposite party, though served, remained absent and so the opposite party was placed ex -parte.

DURING enquiry, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and the documents filed by the complainant came to be marked as Ex. C -1 to C -11. We heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, perused the pleadings and the material placed on record.

EX .C -1 is the abstract of the papers sent to Sweden. The communications, Exs. C -2, C -3, C -4 and Ex. C -5, do go to show that the complainant was in correspondence with the Department of Journalism, Media and Communication, Stockholm University, Sweden, regarding her papers and her participation in the conference to be held at Brezil in the month of August, 1992. The complainant sent the papers to Sweden on 13.7.1992 through the opposite parry couriers. The opposite party collected a sum of Rs. 600/ - from the complainant, as per Ex. C -2 to send the documents to Stockholm, Sweden.

IT is the case of the complainant that the opposite party on 13.7.1992, assured her that it would positively carry the same to Stockholm, Sweden by 17.7.1992. But there is no documentary material placed on record to show that the opposite party had so assured to the complainant. The complainant has given evidence, by way of affidavit to show that the opposite party had so assured her. There is no rebuttal on the part of the opposite party on this evidence of the complainant. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant when she handed over the papers to the opposite party on 13.7.1992 to carry the same to Stockholm, Sweden, the opposite party assured the complainant that it would carry the same on or before 17.7.1992.

EX . C -11 is the Fax message dated 27.7.1992 from Prof. Madeleine Kleberg. That shows that till 29.7.1992, the said papers were not received by Prof. M. Kleberg at Stockholm, Sweden. Exs. C -7, C -8 and Ex. C -9 are the copies of the letters that show that the complainant subsequently on 31.7.1992, despatched another copy of her papers to Stockholm, Sweden. The complainant has stated that she received a message from Prof. M. Kleberg on 3.8.1992, stating that the papers sent through the courier reached her hands but unfortunately it was too late.

THESE circumstances would go to show that the papers sent through couriers on 13.7.1992 reached the destination only by 3.8.1992, unfortunately by that time it was too late to consider the candidature of the complainant to participate in the Conference to be held at Brazil between 16.8.1992 and 21.8.1992.

THESE circumstances would clearly establish the fact that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in carrying the papers after a long delay to the destination. The complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 2,500/ - towards expenses incurred by her for Fax messages and report; but she has not produced any bills for the same. But the documents, that is copies of letters produced by her do show that she had sent Fax messages to Stockholm, Sweden. We deem it proper to award a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - on this count.

THE complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs. 2,550/ - towards telephone bills -interna -tional, but she has not produced any bills to show that she had incurred any such expenses. So we do not find any ground to award any sum on this count.

THE complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 4,200/ - towards Secretarial expenses. We deem it proper to award a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - on this count. The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs. 750/ - towards expenses incurred for courier service and postal charges. Ex. C -6 shows the courier charges paid by her were in a sum of Rs. 600/ -. Having regard to this fact, we find it justand proper to award a sum of Rs. 750/ -to the complainant towards courier and postal charges.

THE complainant also claimed a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs for mental agony and sufferings undergone by her and also for having lost an opportunity of presenting her papers in the International Conference. The complainant has given the affidavit to show as to how she had undergone mental agony and suffering. So, having regard to this fact, we deem it just and proper to award a compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - to the complainant.

SO the complainant, in our opinion, is entitled to get in all a compensation in a sum of Rs. 7,750/ -. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint is allowed. The opposite party -couriers, is directed to pay to the complainant a total sum of Rs. 7,750/ - as compensation. The opposite party shall also pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/ - to the complainant towards costs of this proceeding. The opposite party shall pay the sums so awarded to the complainant within a period of 60 (sixty) days from this day. The opposite party, in case fails to make the payment of the sums so awarded to the complainant, the opposite party shall pay the same with interest at 18% p.a. from that day, that is, after the expiry of the period of 60 days till the date of its payment, to the complainant. Complaint allowed. _