LAWS(TNCDRC)-2006-7-1

JAYAKUMAR JEYARAJ Vs. PROFESSIONAL COURIER

Decided On July 14, 2006
Jayakumar Jeyaraj Appellant
V/S
Professional Courier Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant in C.O.P. No. 51/2000 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli, is the appellant herein. His case was as follows: (a) He sold one Ambassador car on 10.8.1999 to one R. Muthuramalingam. All the documents relating to the car with a covering letter to Hindustan Motors Ltd., in Kolkata were sent on 2.11.1999. The cover contained the documents which the opposite party was expected to submit within a specified time. The cover containing the documents did not reach the destination. Many reminders were sent to the opposite party. There was no reply. Finally, the complainant sent registered letters on 21.3.2000 and 29.3.2000. There was no proof of delivery given by the opposite party and in the process, the complainant lost the refund of excise duty in a sum of Rs. 41,000. In these circumstances, the complaint came to be filed.

(2.) THE complaint was resisted by the opposite party in the following manner: On 2.11.1999 ,10 letters were sent from Tirunelveli to West Bengal. They reached West Bengal on 4.11.1999. Only the sender would know what the cover contained. He could get the P.O.D. by showing the receipt. As per the rules of the opposite party, the P.O.D. would be maintained for 90 days. Thereafter, it would be destroyed. The complainant sent a letter after a lapse of five months. On 23.3.2000, a letter was sent to the office of the opposite party in Kolkata to send the P.O.D. if any available. Another letter was sent on 25.4.2000. As per the reply, the P.O.D. was not available since the same was maintained only for three months. There was no record to show that the letter was not delivered to the addressee. There was no negligence on the part of the opposite party. In any event, the liability of the opposite party was only Rs. 100.

(3.) THE District Forum found that the complainant had not proved that the cover had not been delivered to the addressee. In that view of the matter, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.