FRANCH EXPRESS Vs. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.