BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, COIMBATORE-18.
Present: Thiru R.DHANDAPANI, B.Sc.,B.L., President
Thiru K.RATHINAM, M.A., Member
Tmt.S.SARASWATHI, B.Sc., Member
C.C.NO.155/2011
Tuesday, the 19th day of July, 2011
S.Sakthi Ganapathy,M.Com.,B.L.,
Advocate, 91, Uppara Street,
Coimbaatore- 641 001. .... Complainant
... Vs ...
Franch Express Net Work Pvt., Ltd.,
B-7, Madhani Complex, 100 Feet Road,
8th Street Corner, Gandhipuram,
Coimbatore- 641 012 rep.by its Manager. Opposite Party
This case coming on for final hearing before us on 12.7.2011 in the presence of Thiru. S.Shanmugam, Advocate for complainant and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:
ORDER
THIRU R.DHANDAPANI, PRESIDENT
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments in the complaint are as follows:
1. The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service by the opposite party/courier. According to him, the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by failing to deliver a consignment sent by him through them on 1.3.11 which has caused mental agony and financial loss to him.
2. The opposite party received the notice from this Forum on 10.6.10. However he did not appear before this Forum on the hearing date ie. on 28.6.11.
3. Again the matter was posted to 12.7.11 the opposite party did not appear on that date also. Hence he was found absent and set exparte.
4. The points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:-
1. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service?
2. If so, what relief the complainant is entitled to?
POINT Nos:1 & 2:-
5. To prove his claim, the complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked.
6. Ex.A1 is the courier docket dt.1.3.11. A perusal of it reveals that the complainant has sent a consignment through the opposite party on that day
7. Ex.A2 is the legal notice dt.28.3.11 sent by the complainant. In the above letter, he has asked the opposite party to deliver the consignment to the addressee and also to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to him for the mental agony etc. sustained by him.
8. A perusal of Ex.A3, the copy of acknowledgement card, reveals that the opposite party/courier has received the above notice on 29.3.11. However, they have not sent any reply to the complainant.
9. Failure to reply to the notice of the customer is also a case of deficiency in service. Since they have not sent any reply to the above legal notice, it has to be presumed that they have accepted the allegations made therein.
10. Hence, we hold that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not delivering the consignment sent by the complainant through the opposite party under Ex.A1 and have caused mental agony and sufferings to him and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation. Points 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.
19. In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party:-
a. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other sufferings caused to the complainant due to their deficiency in service, and
b. to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings
within a period of one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 19th day of July, 2011.
(Sd/-) (Sd/-) (Sd/-)
(K.RATHINAM) (S.SARASWATHI) (R.DHANDAPANI)
Member Member President
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:
1. Ex.A1/1-3-11 Copy of consignment slip No. A19248253
2. Ex.A2/ 28-3-11 Copy of legal notice.
3. Ex.A3/29-3-11 Copy of Acknowledgement card.
(Sd/-) (Sd/-) (Sd/-)
(K.RATHINAM) (S.SARASWATHI) (R.DHANDAPANI)
Member Member President
0 comments:
Post a Comment