THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMMISION

PANAJI – GOA



Present:

Smt. Sandra Vaz e Correia. . . Presiding Member.

Smt. Caroline Collasso . . . Member.



Appeal No. 15 of 2008



Shri Balkrishna Sagun Prabhu,

H.No.692,

Ardhawada Mayem,

Bicholim Goa. … Appellant

(Original Complainant)



v/s



1) DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

01 Dempo Towers, EDC Complex,

Patto Plaza, Panjim Goa.



2) DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

Bicholim Collection Center,

Bicholim Goa.

(Original Opposite Party) … Respondents



None for the Appellant

For the Respondent. …Shri S Raikar, Advocate



Dated:11-05-2009



ORDER



[Per Ms. Caroline Collasso, Member]



1. Aggrieved by judgment/order dated 28-01-2008 passed by the District Forum. North Goa, in Complaint No.36/2007 the present appeal is preferred.



2. The Appellant who was the original complainant before the District Forum stated that on 04-12-2006, he had sent a parcel of goods consisting of 25 fixed wireless terminals/fixed cable less terminals through DTDC Couriers and Cargo Ltd. from the collection centre at Bicholim, who are arraigned as Opposite Party No.2. The office of DTDC Company at Panjim, Goa is arraigned as Opposite Party No.1. The parcel was sent to one Mr. Kamal at New Delhi. The Courier consignment note bearing No.M23662418 was annexed. So also annexed was the “declaration form” signed by the complainant in respect of the goods. In this form the nature of goods dispatched and their total number was described, as well as the value of goods which was stated to be Rs.1,49,875/-. The complainant states that since the parcel did not reach the consignee he inquired about the same at the DTDC collection centre at Bicholim, and office of DTDC at Panjim, and finally on 22-01-2007 filed a claim letter with Opposite Party No.1, demanding delivery of goods to consignee or payment of the value of goods i.e. Rs.1,49,875/- in the parcel. It is further the case of Complainant that the DTDC Company, vide letter dated 29-03-2007, had rejected the claim. The complainant states that the rejection of claim was wrong and done to avoid their responsibility of paying him compensation for deficiency of service for the loss of goods by them, and, thus, the complaint came to be filed before the District Forum praying that the opposite parties pay him the sum of Rs.1,49,875/- with 12.05% interest from the date of loss of goods till final settlement as compensation for the loss of goods, and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental agony.



3. Despite receipt of notice, both opposite parties did not contest the complaint and matter proceeded ex-parte. After the complainant filed affidavit-in-evidence, matter was fixed for order which was to be communicated. On going through the documents on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.



4. Aggrieved by the judgment/order the same is challenged inter alia on the grounds that the order is contrary to law and evidence on record and indicates non application of mind; that the District Forum erred in holding that the claim was not lodged in the stipulated time; that the District Forum failed to note that the discrepancy in the date of booking on the consignment note as 04-12-2006 and date of declaration form as 05-12-2006 was due to negligence and faulty procedures by the opposite party no.1; and not due to misrepresentation by the Appellant; that District Forum erred in concluding that the complainant had not contacted Mr. Shareef when in fact he had done so; that the District Forum had erred in concluding that there was no deficiency in service on the ground of non mentioning of the value of goods on the consignment note. Appellant prayed for judgment to be quashed and set aside.



5. On being noticed, the respondent/opposite party filed a reply wherein they have stated numerous factual material, while on legal aspects they have chiefly argued that the trial court judgment and order has rightly rejected the claim of the complainant. It is to be noted as stated earlier, since the matter proceeded ex-parte in the District Forum, we cannot now take into consideration any factual material sought to be brought on record by the Opposite Party.



6. We have perused the complaint and documents on record. The District Forum while dismissing the complaint has given five reasons for doing so. We will deal with each of the five points individually.



7. The first observation of the District Forum is that the claim should be referred and settled within 30 days, and, since the parcel was booked on 04-12-2006, the “claim has not been lodged as per the stipulated time”. A perusal of the courier consignment note does mention in fine print “claims should be preferred and settled within 30 days of booking at the booking centre only”. Firstly, this is not the ground taken by the Opposite Party vide their letter dated 29-03-2007 for rejection of the claim, besides terms and conditions in a private agreement cannot oust the provisions of the law, which under the Consumer Protection Act gives the complainant time of two years from date of cause of action for filing complaint for deficiency of service and redressal of his grievances.



8. Coming to the next point of the District Forum, that “the date on the consignment note shows 04/12/2006. The date value of goods shows consignment Note No. M23662418 dated 05/12/2006. There is discrepancy in these dates”. A perusal of the courier consignment note given by the Opposite Party and annexed by the complainant indicates that a parcel was indeed sent by the complainant to Mr. Kamal at New Delhi on 4/12/2006 and mentions the consignment note bearing No: M23662418. Annexed is also a declaration form signed by the Complainant dated 05-12-2006 which clearly mentions the description of the consignment as being 25 fixed wireless terminals and valued at Rs.1,49,875/-. It is important to note that this “Declaration Form”, though signed on 5/12/2006, clearly mentions the consignment note number as being M 23662418. This is the same number which appears on the consignment note given by the Opposite Party to the complainant on 04-12-2006. The discrepancy in the dates is totally immaterial and what is important is to ascertain whether a parcel bearing the above number was in fact sent by complainant through the opposite party who are a Courier and Cargo Company. The fact of the parcel being sent has never been in dispute, moreso, the opposite party had not denied the sending of the parcel in their reply dated 29-03-2007. The discrepancy in dates does not in any way come to the rescue of the opposite party, since the sending of the parcel is undisputed.



9. The third reasoning of the District Forum in rejecting the complaint is that there is no “authorized” signature on the document showing the value which has been filed by the complainant and signed by him. The declaration form is obviously a proforma prepared by the opposite parties and kept at their various collection centres. There is no word “authorized” signature appearing on the proforma. The word authorized would be relevant perhaps only if the consignment was being sent by a company/firm and not applicable to individual customers. We are thus, unable to understand how the District Forum could have held that there was no “authorized signature” on the relevant document. Besides, if this ever was a requirement it was the duty of the opposite parties to obtain such authorization if they so required and the onus is not on a consumer who is using the service of the opposite party to send his consignment. Again this is also not an issue ever raised by the opposite party.



10. The fourth ground for the rejection of the complaint as given by the District Forum is that the complainant did not take steps “to meet Mr. Shareef on mobile No.9321048604 as directed by the opposite parties for further clarification as per their letter dated 29-03-2007.” It is surprising as to how the District Forum came to this conclusion that the complainant did not contact Mr. Shareef . Firstly, the letter dated 29-03-2007 of opposite party directs the complainant to contact Mr. Shareef on phone no.9321048604 and not to ‘meet’ him. Vide the letter dated 29-03-2007, the opposite party had already repudiated the claim and requested the complainant to contact Mr. Shareef “for any clarification”. The complainant in his complaint has focused on the repudiation of the claim and does not have to mention all details of having contacted Mr. Shareef. Anyway, this is no ground for rejection of a complaint. It is not the job of the complainant to run around to meet or contact some person/s named by the opposite parties, but the service providers who should give satisfaction and good service to the consumers.



11. The final reason for rejection of complaint by the District Forum is that there was absence of proof of the value of goods. The complainant had annexed the declaration form wherein at the time of booking the consignment he had mentioned the value of goods as being Rs.1,49,875/-. This value has been stated under affidavit by the complainant and has not been contested by the opposite parties who were served in the matter, so we have no reason to disbelieve the same.



12. The letter of opposite parties dated 29-03-2009 is also perused by us. The claim was rejected for the following reasons:



1) Shipper signature not mentioned.

2) No insurance policy is available.

3) Above five thousand claims company required a registered surveyor’s report.

4) Contents are not mentioned.



13. Firstly the reasons for the rejection are cryptic. We also note that the declaration form contains signature and contents of consignment. Why should the consumer have an insurance policy? If any risk is to be covered it would have to be by the opposite parties for any loss they may suffer for loss of goods. If a registered surveyor’s report was necessary, why was it not done by opposite parties prior to rejection of claim? The opposite parties cannot wash their hands of the matter just because they are a large reputed company pitted against a helpless consumer, who, as per the court records indicate, was assisted by students of Salgaonkar College Legal Aid Consumer clinic to file the present complaint.



14.Consumer Courts have held that with courier companies competing with traditional service being offered by the Post & Telegraph Department, when the parcel is sent under the consignment note, the courier is under legal obligation to delivery the said consignment to the addressee and if they fail to do so, it constitutes deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act. The issues for determination in earlier cases were only on the value of goods in the consignment if the same was not stated by the consignor. Obviously, to obviate these initial problems, the consignor has to sign the declaration form stating the value of goods in the parcel. In the case at hand the value and description of the goods were stated in the declaration Form and thus the Courier company was clearly forewarned of their liability. The standard of care and caution to be exercised by them is of a higher degree for goods of higher value. If as the logo of the opposite parties proclaims: “DTDC – delivering value”, they should keep up to their promise and deliver the valuable parcels of consumers promptly and are definitely liable for deficiency of service for loss/non delivery.



ORDER



Appeal No.15/08 is allowed. Judgment/Order of the District Forum, North Goa, dated 28-01-2008 in complaint No.36/2007 is quashed and set aside. Opposite parties are directed to pay to the appellant/original complainant the sum of Rs.1,49,875/- being the stated value of the goods in the consignment with interest @ 9% from 04-12-2006 till final payment within thirty days from this order. No further costs.



Pronounced.



[Sandra Vaz e Correia]

Member





[Caroline Collasso]

Member

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Ayyanthole , Thrissur

consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/119

P.K.Geevar
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

DTDC Courier And Cargo Ltd
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh
2. Rajani P.S.


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. P.K.Geevar


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. DTDC Courier And Cargo Ltd


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Adv.A.D.Benny


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:

The case of the complainant is as follows: On 13.9.07 the complainant sent a courier through the respondent to TTK Health Care Service at Bangalore. The respondent issued a receipt bearing No. Q 13725280. The courier contained insurance related documents. But till this day the respondent did not hand over the said courier to the addressee. The complainant contacted the respondent but no result. This shows deficiency in service of the respondent. So the complainant was caused to send a lawyer notice but was no reply and no remedy. Hence this complaint.

2. The respondent is called absent and set exparte.

3. To prove the case of the complainant, he has filed affidavit and the documents produced by him were marked as Exts. P1 to P3.

4. According to the complainant he had sent a courier through the respondent agency to TTK Health Centre at Bangalore on 13.9.07. But the respondent did not deliver the things so far. The complainant contacted the respondent many times. But there is no settlement of the claim and so this complaint has filed.
5. There is no counter evidence to the evidence of the complainant.

6. In the result, complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as compensation with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the complainant within one month.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 23rd day of March 2009.



......................
Padmini Sudheesh

......................
Rajani P.S.

COMPLAINANT M/s. Chanakya Industries, No. 558/549/1, Opp. Bank of Baroda, Magadi Main Road, Kamakshipalaya, Bangalore – 560 079. Represented by its Managing Partner G.K. Ananthaiah. Advocate (K. Ravi)

V/s.


OPPOSITE PARTY D.T.D.C. Courier and Cargo Ltd., No. 269, Lahari Towers, Albert Victor Road, 1st Main Chamarajpet, Bangalore – 560 018. Represented by its Supervisor C.S.S. R. Mohanraj. Advocate (P.K. Venkatesh Prasad)

O R D E R

This is a complaint filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.1,82,520/- and a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant booked a consignment with OP on 04.04.2007 containing special tools of 18 in no. of worth Rs.1,82,520/- to be delivered to M/s. Fedreal Mogul Goetze India Limited, Patiala. OP collected the necessary service charges. Complainant expected the delivery of the said goods within a day or two. But to his utter shock and surprise the said goods were not delivered right up to 09.06.2007.
When complainant enquired the OP about the non-delivery of the consignment OP came up with a defence that the said goods are misplaced in transit. For no fault of the complainant, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. His repeated requests and demands to compensate him, went in futile. Hence he felt the deficiency in service. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.


2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP there is no proof that complainant has entrusted the goods worth of Rs.1,82,520/-. As per the consignment note in case of delay in delivery or loss or misplace liability of the OP is only for Rs.100/-. There is no proof of deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The claim is highly exorbitant and baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.


3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.


4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No.
2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No.
3 :- To what Order?


5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:

Point No.1:- In Affirmative
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part
Point No.3:- As per final Order.


R E A S O N S


6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the services of the OP for the transportation of special tools of 18 in no. worth of Rs.1,82,520/-. OP accepted the said consignment on 04.04.2007 and promised to deliver the same within a day or two. Complainant to his utter shock and surprise got the information from the consignee that right up to 09.06.2007 the goods are not delivered. When complainant contacted the OP, OP came up with a defence that the said goods have been misplaced and their liability at the most if any is only Rs.100/-.
Complainant has produced the consignment note. OP has collected Rs.1,380/- for the transportation of the said goods. The other documents produced by the complainant with regard to the loss/damage/short claim form belonging to the OP clearly discloses that the claim amount as Rs.1,82,520/- the value of the goods that is entrusted to OP. The details of the tools entrusted, cost of the same and letter correspondence made are produced.


7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. The complainant even got issued the legal notice on 18.10.2007 to OP, again there was no response.
The copy of the legal notice is produced. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, just to shirk their responsibility. OP has contended as per the consignment note their liability if any with regard to loss, damage or misplacement of the goods during the transit is only Rs.100/-. For that consignment note complainant is not a party, there is no concluding contract as far as the liability of Rs.100/- is concerned between the complainant and the OP. Hence OP cannot take the undue advantage of certain imprint made in a small letter in the consignment letter. We do not find force in the said defence of the OP.


8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents produced by the complainant, the contents of which are not at all disputed by the OP leads us to draw an inference that complainant had entrusted the consignment consisting of 18 tools of worth Rs.1,82,520/- to OP.
Right up to this day the said consignment is not delivered. Naturally complainant for no fault of his, must have suffered both mental agony and financial loss. It is all because of the carelessness, negligence and hostile attitude of the OP. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service. Under such circumstances we find it is a fit case, wherein the complainant deserves the cost of the consignment entrusted to OP with litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:


O R D E R

The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay Rs.1,82,520/- towards the cost of the consignment entrusted to it and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. Failing in which the complainant is entitled to claim an interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs.1,82,520/- from 04.04.2007 till realization along with the litigation cost.

C. Jaibun Bee, D/o C. Mahaboob Vali, 25 years, Muslim,

R/o H.No. 1/71/2B, Kannenuru road,

Jammalamadugu Town and Mandal,

Kadapa District. ….. Complainant.

Vs.


1) The Managing Director, D.T.D.C Courier and Cargo Ltd.,

Retd. Office, H.No. 3, Victoria road, Bangalore.

2) The Manager, D.T.D.C Courier, Telerama Complex,

Ground Floor, Near Osmania Medical College, Koti, Hyderabad.

3) The Branch Manager, D.T.D.C., Courier and Cargo Ltd.,

H.No. 1-10-1, 1-10-14, Opp. Airport Line, Prakash Nagar,

Bottles and Chimni, Begumpet, Hyderabad,

4) The manager, D.T.D.C. Courier, Beside Jyothi Xerox,

Old Bus Stand, Jammalamadugu town,

Kadapa district. ….. Respondents.



O R D E R



(Per Smt. B. Durga Kumari, Member),



1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to the respondents to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- for loosing the job with the acts of respondents, to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of the complaint.



2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant stated that she studied upto M.Com and completed training as Radio-Grapher at Anantapur and applied for the post of Radio-grapher on contract basis in Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad. After scrutiny the Joint Commissioner of APVVP sent a call letter to the complainant on 10-6-2008 and the same was posted through respondent courier receive on 11-6-2008 at Putlibowli branch office at Hyderabad.

The R3 sent interview letter to the complainant and the same was delivered to the complainant by R4 on 14-7-2008 at Jammalamadugu. After receiving the said cover the complainant opened it and verified that she received the call letter and she has to attend interview on 19-6-2008 at District Co-coordinator Hospital Services, Old RIMS, near 7 Roads, Kadapa at 9.00a.m. But surprisingly the complainant received call letter from R4 on 14-7-2008 i.e. after lapse of interview date i.e. 19-6-2008. The complainant was astonished and enquired with the opposite parties she came to know that the APVVP booked the said cover at Putlibowli branch office, Hyderabad on 11-6-2008 and she received the cover on 14-7-2008 through R4 i.e. after lapse of 25 days of booking of the said cover. Prior to that she was expecting a call letter from APVVP so the complainant and her father enquired at DTDC courier service i.e. R4 Jammalamadugu branch office, whether they got any cover. On 13-6-2008, 15-6-2008 and 17-6-2008 they enquired for call letter but R4 stated that they have not any cover.

The complainant further stated that Jammalamadugu is only 340 Kms from Hyderabad and any postage it has to reach, the consignee within 3 days. But the respondents 1 to 4 made abnormal delay in sending the cover to the complainant within time. The complainant was a merit student and she lost an opportunity of getting a job in the Medical services. The complainant made enquiry with the respondents but no proper answer was given to the complainant. She issued a legal notice on 12-8-2008, though the respondents received legal notice they did not choose to reply for the legal notice. The respondents are negligent in performing their duties and there is deficiency of service on the part of the respondents.



3. Sri T. Mohana Krishna, Advocate filed Vakalath for R1 to R4 but failed to file any counter on behalf of the respondents. The case was decided on merits.

4. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A9 were marked.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.

i. Whether the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation for loosing job opportunity from the respondents?

ii. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?

iii. To what relief?



6. Point No. 1 & 2 Heard both sides and perused the records available with the forum and the forum made the following order. The complainant studied upto M.Com and completed training as Radio-Grapher at Anantapur and applied for the post of Radio-grapher on contract basis in Andhra Pradesh Vaidya Vidhana Parishad. After scrutiny the Joint Commissioner of APVVP sent a call letter to the complainant on 10-6-2008 and the same was posted through respondent courier receive on 11-6-2008 at Putlibowli branch office at Hyderabad. The R3 sent interview letter to the complainant and the same was delivered to the complainant by R4 on 14-7-2008 at Jammalamadugu.

After receiving the letter she came to know that she has to attend the interview on 19-6-2008. But unfortunately she received the said call letter on 14-7-2008 i.e. after lapse of 25 days. The interview date was in the month of June but she received interview letter in the month of July. Ex. A1 is the original call letter dt. 10-6-2008. Ex. A2 is the Xerox copy of acknowledgement card received from APVVP, Kadapa. Ex. A3 is the Xerox copy of acknowledgement card received from APVVP, Hyderabad. Ex. A4 is the Xerox coy of cover sent to the complainant from APVVP, Kadapa. Ex. A5 is the Xerox copy of courier consignment note it shows that the APVVP booked call letter on 11-6-2008 Putlibowli Branch, Hydeabad. Ex. A6 is the interview call letter cover received by the complainant from R4. Ex. A7 is the Xerox copy of delivery run sheet issued by R4, dt. 14-7-2008. Ex. A8 is the office copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to the respondents and Ex. A9 is the four served postal acknowledgements.



7. By perusing all the material it is clear that the APVVP has sent call letter to the complainant on 10-6-2008 and the same was booked on 11-6-2008. But R4 delivered the said cover to the complainant on 14-7-2008 at Jammalamadugu i.e. after lapse of 25 days of abnormal delay. Prior to that the complainant also enquired with the respondent No. 4 that is there any letter for her from APVVP, but no such letter was delivered to her why? There is abnormal delay and gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. The act of the respondents caused much mental agony to the complainant and she lost her job opportunity and bright future was also ruined with the act of the respondents. Jammalamadugu is only 345 Kms from Hyderabad and the respondents served the cover to the complainant after 25 days. The DTDC courier is supposed to deliver the call letter to the complainant within 2 days or 3 days. But due to their negligence the cover was served to the complainant after lapse of 25 days. We are of the opinion that all the respondents are negligent and deficiency of service on their part. For which they have to pay compensation to the complainant. We are awarding Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation through it is not sufficient for her with the acts of the respondents and she lost job opportunity and we cannot compensate the same. The respondents show a negligence not only delivering the cover to the complainant within time but they failed to give reply to the complainant’s legal notice. Hence, the points are answered accordingly.



8. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the respondents 1 to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) without interest, compensation and costs to the complainant, within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. The rest of the complainant’s claim is dismissed.

The complainant’s case is as follows: On 13.12.04 the complainant entrusted a courier consignment containing his son’s driving licence to the 2nd respondent. He paid Rs.750/- as service charge for sending the consignment to his son who is working as Automobile Mechanic at Saudi Arabia. At the time of receiving the consignment, the 2nd respondent promised that the consignment will be delivered to his son within three days. But it was not delivered to his son as promised. Then the complainant approached 2nd respondent on 20.12.04 and informed that he will look into the matter and redress the grievances. Later after one month he was informed that the consignment was missed somewhere at Bombay and there is no chance to get it back. Thereafter the complainant applied for and obtained duplicate driving licence for which he had spent Rs.1000/-. He also spent nearly Rs.1000/- to contact his son over telephone many times. He also spent money for sending the licence to his son again. Since the driving licence not received by his son in time it badly affected his promotion. The complainant also sustained mental agony due to the negligence of the respondent. Though the complainant sent lawyer notice to the respondents, no reply sent. Hence the complaint.

2. The respondents are called absent and set exparte.

3. To prove the case of the complainant he filed an affidavit and the documents produced by him are marked as Exts. P1 to P7.

4. According to the complainant, he entrusted a courier consignment containing his son’s driving licence and paid Rs.750/- as service charge for sending the consignment to his son’s address at Saudi Arabia. The respondent promised to deliver it within three days. But not delivered to his son as promised. Later after one month he was informed that the consignment was missed somewhere at Bombay and there is no chance to get it back. Though the complainant sent lawyer notice to the respondent, no reply sent. Hence the complaint. The complainant produced 7 documents to prove the case.

5. There is no counter evidence to the evidence of the complainant.

6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation for the negligent acts of the respondents with cost Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within a month.

mambadan siraj musthafa ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

managing diracter D.T.D.CCOURIERS AND CARGO

D.T.D.CCOURIERS AND CARGO

D.T.D.CCOURIERS AND CARGO Ltd., Branch office ...........Respondent(s)


ORDER



1. Complainant is a computer engineer and is running an agency of Zenith Computers as self employment unit for earning his livelihood. He send a Laptop (Zenith brand) worth Rs.35,000/- to Zenith Computers, Kochi on 30-8-2007 through the courier service of opposite party. The consignment was not delivered to the consignee. Hence this complaint.

2. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 were served. The acknowledgement cards returned to this Forum bear the respective seals of these establishments along with signatures. Hence notices properly served. Opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 remained absent and did not file any version. Their names were called and they were set exparte on 05-9-2008.

3. Third opposite party filed version admitting that complainant had entrusted a consignment containing laptop to be send to the addressee specified in the receipt issued to him. It is stated that on 30-8-2007 itself the article was send from the Kottakal office of third opposite party. That from the sorting office it was send to second opposite party. That complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.

4. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of complainant who was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 marked for him. Counter affidavit filed by third opposite party and Exts.B1 and B2 marked for opposite party No.3. No evidence adduced by First and Second opposite parties.

5. It is admitted that on 30-8-2007 complainant had send a consignment containing a laptop to Zenith Computers, Cochin. It is also admitted by third opposite party in Ext.B2 that the said consignment was lost in transit. Failure to deliver the consignment amounts to deficiency in service. We find opposite parties deficient in service.

6. Regarding the liability, the contention raised on behalf of opposite party is that the liability is limited to Rs.100/- as per terms and conditions printed on reverse side of the consignment note/receipt. We cannot agree with this submission.


Though it is printed on the reverse side of Ext.A1 consignment note, that the liability is limited to Rs.100/- this note is not signed by the complainant. The complainant has therefore not agreed or accepted the conditions printed there on. Moreover in this case the article was declared and its’ value was also declared. In Ext.A1 the value of the consignment is stated as Rs.35,000/- and it’s weight is shown as 3kg. Opposite party has collected Rs.35/- as charges. In Ext.A2 declaration form it is declared that the consignment contains a laptop (Zenith) valuing Rs.35,000/-. It is amply proved by cogent evidence that the value of the consignment is rs.35,000/-. When the article send has been declared the complainant is definitely entitled to be compensated for loss suffered by him.


The deficiency in this case is a serious one. There is no doubt that the parcel/article was handled during transit only by persons within the working circle of opposite parties. No steps were taken even after reporting the loss, to trace it and return it. Ext.A3 is the lawyer notice issued by complainant seeking compensation. The reply on the side of opposite party is an offer to pay Rs.100/- only. The attitude of the service provider in not attending to the grievance of the consumer and shirking responsibility even though the complainant has declared the value of the consignment is totally unfair.


We hold that complainant is entitled to Rs.35,000/- as damages with interest @ 9% per annum from date of complaint till payment, which would be adequate relief to the complainant. First opposite party being the Managing Director of DTDC Couriers and second opposite party being the regional office to which the consignment was directed are equally responsible along with third opposite party with whom the consignment was initially booked. He is also entitled to cost of Rs.2,500/-.

7. In the result, we allow the complaint and order that all the three opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) as damages along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till payment together with cost of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Ajithkumar, Ajith Bhavan,Mathra.P.O.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The General Manager, D.T.D.C-Courier and Cargo Ltd

The Branch Manager, D.T.D.C-Corier and Cargo Ltd.,Punalur.P.O.
...........Respondent(s)







ORDER



The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

The complainant on 14.10.2004 entrusted with the 2nd opp.party a consignment weighing 4 Kg. and worth Rs.20,000/- addressed to one N. Suresh, Bimpure, Nagaland. A sum of Rs.400/- was paid as delivery charges for which a the receipt was issued to the complainant. The consignment was not delivered to the addressee . The complainant thereupon approached the 2nd opp.party. But no action was taken by the 2nd opp.party. Thereafter the complainant issued an advocate notice for which a reply was received intimating that steps are being taken to deliver the consignment to the addressee. Even after that the consignment was not delivered and hence the complaint.



The 2nd opp.party filed a version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. It is true that the complainant entrusted with this opp.party a consignment which was received and C. Note No.003097689 was issued. The consignment was forwarded to the Kollam office for onward transmission to the Regional Office Kochi The complainant has not entrusted any consignment worth Rs.20,000/- On 14.10.2004 itself, the consignment was forwarded to the Super Franchise Office Kollam from where it was forwarded to the Kochy Regional office. The complaint was attended timely and the information was forwarded to higher UPS immediately . There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opp.party. The complainant has no cause of action against the 2nd opp.party. Hence the 2nd opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.


Opp.party 3 and 4 who were subsequently impleaded have filed separate version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection

Act. It is not true that the complainant entrusted articles worth Rs.20,000/- to the 2nd opp.party. As per the statements given by the complainant to the 2nd opp.party the value of article is only Rs.1700/-. The complainant has not declared which are the item in the parcel and without doing that he has no right to file a complaint. As per the rules the list showing the articles in the parcel has to be declared. But in the parcel produced by the complainant such declaration was absent.


This service availed by the complainant is for commercial purpose and therefore the complainant has no right to file this complaint. Immediately on knowing about the complaint, these opp.parties have taken necessary action for the delivery of the parcel. But it was known that the parcel after receipt at the destination disappeared. Thereafter the opp.party offered reasonable compensation. The amounts claimed by the complainant are exorbitant. The opp.parties are always ready and willing to pay the amount declared by the complainant. Hence these opp.parties also prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party

2. Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined and Ext. P1 to P5 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. D1 is marked.



Points:

The case of the complainant is that he entrusted a parcel with opp.party 2 for delivery to a friend of his at Nagaland evidenced by Ext.P1 but the same was not delivered to the addressee by the opp.parties which is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. According to the complaint the value of the articles in the parcel was Rs.20,000/- whereas according to the opp.parties the value of the articles as declared by the complainant is only Rs.1700/- which is evident from Ext. D1 declaration filed by PW.1 himself.



There is no dispute that the parcel received by the opp.parties as per Ext.P1 was not delivered to the addressee. According to the opp.parties the above parcel was received by their office at Nagaland but thereafter the same could not be traced. In the version itself the opp.parties have agreed to pay the value of the articles as declared by PW.1 as per Ext.D1 but PW.1 was not amenable for the same.

As a matter of fact there is no material other than the oral testimony of PW.1 to show that the value of the articles entrusted with opp.party 2 comes to Rs.20,000/- The items or the value of the articles in the parcel entrusted with opp.party 2 as per Ext.P1 is not stated in the complaint or in the affidavit or Ext.P2 Advocate notice. In cross examination PW.1 admitted that the articles in the parcel were fancy items such as chain, bungles etc.. But the number and types of the item are not forthcoming. Ext. D1 clearly shows that their value as declared by PW.1 himself is Rs.1700/-. Had the articles worth Rs.20,000/- naturally he we would have stated the value as Rs.20,000/- . The burden to establish that the value of the articles booked as per Ext.P1 was Rs.20,000/- is on the complainant which the complainant failed to discharge.



As pointed out earlier the opp.parties have stated in their version itself that they are ready to pay the value of articles as per Ext. D1. When the matter was taken for settlement in the adalath also the opp.parties offered Rs.3000/- for which also the complainant was not amenable The complainant has no case that those articles have any antique or any other value than what is shown in Ext. D1 .


It is to be noted that the liability of opp.parties as per the stipulation in Ext.P1 is Rs.100/- only and we feel that the offer made by the opp.parties to settle the matter was reasonable. The non-delivery of the parcel though can be termed as deficiency in service in the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that it is due to any willful negligence on the side of the opp.party. On considering the entire evidence in this case we feel that the amount of Rs. 3000/- offered as compensation by the opp.parties is just and reasonable and we are inclined to allow Rs.3,000/- as compensation . Point found accordingly.

In the result, the complainant is allowed in part, directing the opp.parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs.

Ajithkumar, Ajith Bhavan,Mathra.P.O.
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The General Manager, D.T.D.C-Courier and Cargo Ltd

The Branch Manager, D.T.D.C-Corier and Cargo Ltd.,Punalur.P.O.
...........Respondent(s)







ORDER



The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

The complainant on 14.10.2004 entrusted with the 2nd opp.party a consignment weighing 4 Kg. and worth Rs.20,000/- addressed to one N. Suresh, Bimpure, Nagaland. A sum of Rs.400/- was paid as delivery charges for which a the receipt was issued to the complainant. The consignment was not delivered to the addressee . The complainant thereupon approached the 2nd opp.party. But no action was taken by the 2nd opp.party. Thereafter the complainant issued an advocate notice for which a reply was received intimating that steps are being taken to deliver the consignment to the addressee. Even after that the consignment was not delivered and hence the complaint.



The 2nd opp.party filed a version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. It is true that the complainant entrusted with this opp.party a consignment which was received and C. Note No.003097689 was issued. The consignment was forwarded to the Kollam office for onward transmission to the Regional Office Kochi The complainant has not entrusted any consignment worth Rs.20,000/- On 14.10.2004 itself, the consignment was forwarded to the Super Franchise Office Kollam from where it was forwarded to the Kochy Regional office. The complaint was attended timely and the information was forwarded to higher UPS immediately . There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opp.party. The complainant has no cause of action against the 2nd opp.party. Hence the 2nd opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.


Opp.party 3 and 4 who were subsequently impleaded have filed separate version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection

Act. It is not true that the complainant entrusted articles worth Rs.20,000/- to the 2nd opp.party. As per the statements given by the complainant to the 2nd opp.party the value of article is only Rs.1700/-. The complainant has not declared which are the item in the parcel and without doing that he has no right to file a complaint. As per the rules the list showing the articles in the parcel has to be declared. But in the parcel produced by the complainant such declaration was absent.


This service availed by the complainant is for commercial purpose and therefore the complainant has no right to file this complaint. Immediately on knowing about the complaint, these opp.parties have taken necessary action for the delivery of the parcel. But it was known that the parcel after receipt at the destination disappeared. Thereafter the opp.party offered reasonable compensation. The amounts claimed by the complainant are exorbitant. The opp.parties are always ready and willing to pay the amount declared by the complainant. Hence these opp.parties also prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party

2. Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined and Ext. P1 to P5 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. D1 is marked.



Points:

The case of the complainant is that he entrusted a parcel with opp.party 2 for delivery to a friend of his at Nagaland evidenced by Ext.P1 but the same was not delivered to the addressee by the opp.parties which is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. According to the complaint the value of the articles in the parcel was Rs.20,000/- whereas according to the opp.parties the value of the articles as declared by the complainant is only Rs.1700/- which is evident from Ext. D1 declaration filed by PW.1 himself.



There is no dispute that the parcel received by the opp.parties as per Ext.P1 was not delivered to the addressee. According to the opp.parties the above parcel was received by their office at Nagaland but thereafter the same could not be traced. In the version itself the opp.parties have agreed to pay the value of the articles as declared by PW.1 as per Ext.D1 but PW.1 was not amenable for the same.

As a matter of fact there is no material other than the oral testimony of PW.1 to show that the value of the articles entrusted with opp.party 2 comes to Rs.20,000/- The items or the value of the articles in the parcel entrusted with opp.party 2 as per Ext.P1 is not stated in the complaint or in the affidavit or Ext.P2 Advocate notice. In cross examination PW.1 admitted that the articles in the parcel were fancy items such as chain, bungles etc.. But the number and types of the item are not forthcoming. Ext. D1 clearly shows that their value as declared by PW.1 himself is Rs.1700/-. Had the articles worth Rs.20,000/- naturally he we would have stated the value as Rs.20,000/- . The burden to establish that the value of the articles booked as per Ext.P1 was Rs.20,000/- is on the complainant which the complainant failed to discharge.



As pointed out earlier the opp.parties have stated in their version itself that they are ready to pay the value of articles as per Ext. D1. When the matter was taken for settlement in the adalath also the opp.parties offered Rs.3000/- for which also the complainant was not amenable The complainant has no case that those articles have any antique or any other value than what is shown in Ext. D1 .


It is to be noted that the liability of opp.parties as per the stipulation in Ext.P1 is Rs.100/- only and we feel that the offer made by the opp.parties to settle the matter was reasonable. The non-delivery of the parcel though can be termed as deficiency in service in the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that it is due to any willful negligence on the side of the opp.party. On considering the entire evidence in this case we feel that the amount of Rs. 3000/- offered as compensation by the opp.parties is just and reasonable and we are inclined to allow Rs.3,000/- as compensation . Point found accordingly.

In the result, the complainant is allowed in part, directing the opp.parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs.

Shri Rajeev Verma S/o Sh.Tara Chand Verma

R/o Swiss Cottage Kasumpti Shimla-9.

...Complainant.





Versus





1. The Manager DTDC, Chankaya Hotel Lakkar Bazar, Shimla-1.



2. The Manager DTDC Bombay, Mehta Industrial Estate, Gali No.15 Near German Remidies, Andheri East Mumbai.



3. The Manager, DTDC Courier and cargo Ltd, Refd Office House No. 3 Victoria Road, Banglore 47.



…Opposite Parties

________________________________________________





ORDER:

Per, Dr. Karuna Machhan, Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provision of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the OPs. The complainant avers that, he is a supplier of medicine of different brands, which are sold by him, through HP State Civil Corporation. He further avers that he was sent a certificate of authorization, by Khandelwal Laboratories, through OP No.2, on, 16.01.2006 which authorization letter was not delivered to him, by the OPs.


The complainant further proceeded to ever that due to non-delivery of aforesaid certificate, by the OPs, he was made to suffer huge loss, as also, he was warned by the Chief Medical Officer as well, as, Civil Supplier Corporation, Shimla, for cancellation for supply order. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs, in its written version, to the complaint, besides raising preliminary objection, vis-à-vis status of the complainant as a consumer and lack of cause of action, had contended that the consignment so booked by the consignee, could not be delivered to the addressee, due to the fact that the address of the addressee, was not correct, as also, non availability of addressee. It is further contended that as per terms and conditions of booking, the consignee is only entitled to receive a sum of Rs.100/- as damages. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. Thereafter, the parties adduced evidence, by way of affidavit, and, documents in support of their respective, rival contentions.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant at length and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.

5. The parties do not wrangle over the fact that complainant was sent a consignment, which consist of authorization certificate by Khandewale Laboratories, which was not delivered to the addressee. Now, the only point which requires determination by this Forum is whether the OPs are guilty of rendering deficient service in as much, as, in not delivering the consignment to its addressee. Hence, taking into consideration the facts and circumstance of the case, as also the contention put forth by the OPs, in its reply, that consignment could not delivered to the addressee, as the address of the addressee, was incomplete, there is no material brought on record by the OPs in substantiation of the said fact, as such, we are of the opinion, that there is certainly a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. For lack of substantiation of the fact, that the address of the addressee was incomplete, it was incumbent upon the OPs to have returned the consignment to the consignor. As such, we are constrained to hold that the OPs in order to exculpate its liability, has concocted a false story. Hence, they can not exculpate their liabilities to indemnify the complainant for the loss he, suffered at the hands of OPs, in not delivering the authorization certificate to him.

6. Though, the complainant has claimed huge compensation of Rs. 3.00 lacs, yet, there is no substantiation of fact that he has suffered such a loss. However, it will be interest of justice, and, fair play, if the complainant is awarded, a, reasonable and nominal compensation which, in the given fats and circumstances of the case, we proceed to asses at Rs. 1000/-, besides litigation cost of Rs. 500/-, payable by the OPs to the complainant, within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order. Hence, the complaint stands disposed of accordingly. The learned counsel for the complainant has undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, whereas the certified copy of this order shall be sent to the OPs through UPC. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Shri R.P. Aggarwal S/o Sh. S.P Aggarwal R/o 49/11, Ekta Colony, Bangran Road, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.



… Complainant.

Versus





DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.

Court Complex, Paonta Sahib,

Through its Manager Shri Jitender Girhotra. …Opposite Party.





O R D E R:



This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, on, 24.09.2007, he booked a parcel with the OP, which was to be delivered to the addressee at Hapur, District Ghaziabad, for which the OP charged Rs.100/- as courier charges. The complainant avers that the parcel so booked with the OP, was containing valuable articles, which was not delivered to the addressee, despite the fact that the OP, was approached several times, and till date the said parcel was neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to the complainant. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not delivering the consignment to the consignee and accordingly relief to the extent, as detailed, in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP in its written version to the complaint raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, limited liability and lack of cause of action. The OP has admitted that the parcel was booked with it, but it was not disclosed at the time of booking, that was the contents of the consignment and as per the terms and conditions, the OP is only liable to the extent of Rs.100/-, in case of any dispute. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, have, also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.

4. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP, in, not having delivered the consignment to the consignee. The OP resist, the, above grievance and in a detailed reply, has, contended that theirs liability is limited only to the extent of Rs.100/- in case of any damage to the consignment.

5. The OP has not contended in its reply whether the consignment, so booked with it, by the complainant, has been delivered to the addressee or not, as such, especially, when the complainant avers its non-delivery to the addressee, hence, owing to lack of a specific denial to the said averment, on the part of the OP, sprouting the inference that the OP, has not delivered the parcel to the addressee, hence, has, not, only committed deficiency in service, rather, also, indulged in an unfair trade practice. What fortifies the above conclusion is lack of proof adduced by the OP, was delivery of the parcel to the addressee.

6. The complainant claims compensation for non-delivery of the consignment to the consignee, to, the tune of Rs.13,000/-, the value of the consignment. However, the OP is deriving the benefit from the courier receipt, hence, seek to restrict their liability, to the extent of Rs.100/-. However, in the light of the case law as reported in 2004(1) Judicial Reports Consumer (NC) in case Osuri Devendra Phanikar versus Desk to Desk Couriers and Cargo Ltd., we are not in agreement with the submission as put forth by the OP, that, theirs liabilities is restricted, only to Rs.100/-, as detailed in the courier receipt, for, the reason that their does, not, exist any proof qua the fact that the terms and conditions, of, the courier receipt were explained to the complainant and then he signed the said receipt. Hence, the OP, cannot derive any benefit from the receipt detailing the fact that theirs liability is restricted only to the extent of Rs.100/-.

7. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Since the complainant has not adduced proof qua value of the goods, thereof, of directing the OP to defray its value to him, cannot be acceded. Besides litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order, for non-delivery of the consignment, thereby indulging in an unfair trade practice. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. In the above terms, the complaint stands disposed of. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Shri R.P. Aggarwal S/o Sh. S.P Aggarwal R/o 49/11, Ekta Colony, Bangran Road, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P.



… Complainant.

Versus





DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.

Court Complex, Paonta Sahib,

Through its Manager Shri Jitender Girhotra. …Opposite Party.









O R D E R:


This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, on, 24.09.2007, he booked a parcel with the OP, which was to be delivered to the addressee at Hapur, District Ghaziabad, for which the OP charged Rs.100/- as courier charges. The complainant avers that the parcel so booked with the OP, was containing valuable articles, which was not delivered to the addressee, despite the fact that the OP, was approached several times, and till date the said parcel was neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to the complainant. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP in not delivering the consignment to the consignee and accordingly relief to the extent, as detailed, in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OP in its written version to the complaint raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, limited liability and lack of cause of action. The OP has admitted that the parcel was booked with it, but it was not disclosed at the time of booking, that was the contents of the consignment and as per the terms and conditions, the OP is only liable to the extent of Rs.100/-, in case of any dispute. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, have, also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.

4. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OP, in, not having delivered the consignment to the consignee. The OP resist, the, above grievance and in a detailed reply, has, contended that theirs liability is limited only to the extent of Rs.100/- in case of any damage to the consignment.

5. The OP has not contended in its reply whether the consignment, so booked with it, by the complainant, has been delivered to the addressee or not, as such, especially, when the complainant avers its non-delivery to the addressee, hence, owing to lack of a specific denial to the said averment, on the part of the OP, sprouting the inference that the OP, has not delivered the parcel to the addressee, hence, has, not, only committed deficiency in service, rather, also, indulged in an unfair trade practice. What fortifies the above conclusion is lack of proof adduced by the OP, was delivery of the parcel to the addressee.

6. The complainant claims compensation for non-delivery of the consignment to the consignee, to, the tune of Rs.13,000/-, the value of the consignment. However, the OP is deriving the benefit from the courier receipt, hence, seek to restrict their liability, to the extent of Rs.100/-. However, in the light of the case law as reported in 2004(1) Judicial Reports Consumer (NC) in case Osuri Devendra Phanikar versus Desk to Desk Couriers and Cargo Ltd., we are not in agreement with the submission as put forth by the OP, that, theirs liabilities is restricted, only to Rs.100/-, as detailed in the courier receipt, for, the reason that their does, not, exist any proof qua the fact that the terms and conditions, of, the courier receipt were explained to the complainant and then he signed the said receipt. Hence, the OP, cannot derive any benefit from the receipt detailing the fact that theirs liability is restricted only to the extent of Rs.100/-.

7. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. Since the complainant has not adduced proof qua value of the goods, thereof, of directing the OP to defray its value to him, cannot be acceded. Besides litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- within a period of forty five days after the date of receipt of copy of this order, for non-delivery of the consignment, thereby indulging in an unfair trade practice. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. In the above terms, the complaint stands disposed of. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Dear Sir/Madam,

This is for your kind information that my sister Smt. Parbati Dey of Durgapur was giving a parcel on 04.01.2010 in your City centre Franchise office to courier it to Noida (Uttar Pradesh) through DTDC courier Service & has been charged Rs. 70/ (seventy rupees only) for it and Courier consignment
No is - K38522668

As i was experienced that it takes maximum 4 days to deliver the distance. After the schedule time while i follow ups with DTDC local office regarding non delivery of the instruments, i was entertained by receptionist whose behaviors is too rude. As we know that it is a service industry & employees should polite with customers. However it was a nice experienced to talk with her regarding this matter & was informed that she don’t entertain me if i call him for it, but although she don’t give any status on it.

Yesterday (10th JAN) at 1.30pm while I call there for the status, i was informed that the instrument is lost & don’t agree to give any details regarding this. It was very surprising that the courier company have no responsibility to inform me about the matter. That means if I don’t call there i must not update about the missing history.

The instrument was a CD (Compaq Disc) of my sister marriage ceremony & I has the only copy on it. It was very precious for me & my family.

Requesting kind attention of appropriate person of your company & for necessary step on it.
Waiting for revert. Please help me

Thanks & Regards
Kanchan Kr. Mondal
Mob. No. 09811169846

Its an un-acceptable that DTDC Courier started there work like a government office, even speed post by Indian Government goes faster than DTDC.

The information I am sharing with you as I booked a courier from DTDC
Booked a courier (Parcel) from a shop near Katnur Dinne JP Nagar 7th Phase on 12th Jan 2010 and got a receipt with a seal of DTDC Courier, Konanakunte Cross, Bangalore - 560062.

1. The Parcel weight of aprox 300 grams.
2. The Parcel is from Bangalore to Ahmedabad
3. I have paid an amout of Rs. 120/- (Rupees One Hundred Twenty Only)
4. The DTDC courier Consignent Number is B59385537
5. The Parcel not yet reached till today (20th Jan 2010) at 12 noon.

The spoke to few people of DTDC and their answers are as follows:

1. Spoke to Shopkeep Mr. Dayanand (9945744427) on 15th Jan 2010 and the answer was :
Ans. There was holidays of Sankranti, it will reach on 16th Jan 2010

2. Spoke to Mr. Dwarkanath Reddy (9481434544) Manager of DTDC Courier of Konanakunte Branch
Ans. It will reach very soon within tuesday (19th Jan 2010)

3. Spoke to Mr. Srinivas of DTDC customer Care on Saturday (16th Jan 2010)
The Consignment Number has not been entered in the DTDC data. Mr. Srinivas provided me with the Mr. Dwarkanath's Number.

4. Again called to Mr. Srinivas of DTDC customer Care on 19th Jan 2010 evening and got the answer that it has been booked on 18th Jan and the Ahmedabad DTDC Courier service received it on 19th Jan 2010 evening.

Hereby I trackdown the detail from the net about DTDC tracking detail, kindly have a look

Additional Details... B59385537

DateFrom --» ToStatus

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 BANGALORE SURFACE APEX, BANGALORE AHMEDABAD APEX, AHMEDABAD Dispatched via Manifest # B4816615

Tue, Jan 19, 2010 BANGALORE, BANGALORE AHMEDABAD APEX, AHMEDABAD Received via Manifest # B4812731

Wed, Jan 20, 2010 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD KALUPUR MASTER FRANCHISEE, AHMEDABAD Dispatched via Manifest # 10014841


The tracking detail shows that it has been despatched on 19th Jan from bangalore, so kindly let me know from 12th Jan 2010 till 19th Jan 2010 why the consignment was lying in Bangalore. It means within these days the parcel may have changed or opened.

Now I think I have to go to file a case with he Consumer Court that the DTDC normally do the booking and send the consignment whenever they feel. As the consignment has been booked on 12th Jan 2010 and still on its way even on 20th Jan 2010 within India.

Waiting for your reply.

regards,
Sudeep Kumar Mazumder
9900607450

Consumer Complaint No: 221/2008

Date of presentation: 16.07.2008

Date of decision: 25.11.2009

Shri Rajan Sood,

Prop. M/s Rajan Agencies,

15/16 Lower Bazar, Shimla-1.
… Complainant.

Versus
1. Sh. Vinod, Branch Incharge,

M/s Kanchan Enterprises,

Franchise DTDC Courier, Hotel Chanakya,

Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, H.P.

2. Regional Manager,

DTDC Courier, SCO-265,

Sector 35/C, Chandigarh.


…Opposite Parties.


For the complainant: Mr. Ranjan Kohal, Advocate.

For the Opposite Parties: Mr. J.L. Sharma, Advocate vice

Mr. Harpal Singh Taragarh, Advocate.
O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, on, 01.02.2006, and 17.03.2006, he handed over five parcels to the OP No.1, for onward delivery to the consignee. The complainant avers that, the parcels so booked with the OP No.1, were containing valuable medicines, which were not delivered to the addressee, despite the fact that the OPs, was approached several times, and till date the said parcel was neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to the complainant. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in not delivering the consignment to the consignee and accordingly relief to the extent, as detailed, in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs in its written version to the complaint raised preliminary objections vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, limited liability and lack of cause of action. The OPs have admitted that the parcels were booked with it, but it was not disclosed at the time of booking, that what was the contents of the consignment and as per the terms and conditions, the liability of the OPs, is, restricted only to the extent of Rs.100/-. It is, further contended that the consignment was lost during transit. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, have, also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.

4. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in, not having delivered the consignments to the consignee. The OPs resist, the, above grievance and in a detailed reply, has, contended that theirs liability, is, limited only to the extent of Rs.100/- in case of any damage to the consignments or on account of loss.

5. The OPs have contended in its reply that the consignments, so booked with it, by the complainant, could not be delivered to the addressee, as it was lost in transit, as such, especially, when the complainant avers, its, non-delivery to the addressee, and the OPs having admitted the fact of its non-delivery on account of the consignment having been lost in transit, hence, sprouts the inference, that, the OPs, has not delivered the parcel to the addressee, hence, has, not, only committed deficiency in service, rather, also, indulged in an unfair trade practice.

6. The complainant claims compensation for non-delivery of the consignments to the consignee, to, the tune of Rs.67,620/-. However, the OPs, is, deriving the benefit from the courier receipt, hence, seek to restrict their liability, to the extent of Rs.100/-. However, in the light of the case law as reported in 2004(1) Judicial Reports Consumer (NC) in case Osuri Devendra Phanikar versus Desk to Desk Couriers and Cargo Ltd., we are not in agreement with the submission as put forth by the OPs, that, theirs liabilities, is, restricted, only to Rs.100/-, as detailed in the courier receipt, for, the reason that their does, not, exist any proof qua the fact that the terms and conditions, of, the courier receipt were explained to the complainant and, then, came to sign the said receipt. Moreover, we have not been apprised of any condition which interdicted the OP from opening the parcel, for determining the value of, its, contents, hence, when, it, was open for the OP, to, have recourse to open the parcel for determining the value of its, contents, theirs not having chosen to do so, gives fillip to the inference that the value as quantified by the complainant on affidavit, which has remained un-controverted, is, truthful. Hence, the OPs, cannot derive any benefit from the receipt detailing the fact that theirs liability is restricted only to the extent of Rs.100/-, especially when the parcel has been, admittedly, lost in transit, qua, which fact of its having been lost in transit, no cogent proof has been adduced, hence, leaving, open scope for the inference, of, its misappropriate, after its entrustment to them by the complainant.

7. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and the OPs, jointly and severally, is, directed to refund the cost of the parcels, amounting to Rs.17,620/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, till actual payment is made. The litigation cost, is, quantified at Rs.1000/- payable by the OPs, to the complainant. This order shall be complied with by the OPs, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. In the above terms, the complaint stands disposed of. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.

Consumer Complaint No: 144/2008

Date of presentation: 06.05.2008

Date of decision: 25.11.2009
Shri Vinod Attri, S/o Late Sh. R.D. Attri,

Prop. Alpha Info Tech, Hotel Diplomat Complex,

Lakkar Bazar, Shimla H.P.
… Complainant.
Versus

1. Regional manager, DTDC Courier,

SCO-265, Sector-35/C, Chandigarh.

2. Sh. Vinod, Branch Incharge,

M/s Kanchan Enterprises,

Franchise DTDC Courier, Hotel Chanakya,

Lakkar Bazar, Shimla, H.P.

…Opposite Parties.

For the complainant: Mr. Rajan Kohal, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Dheeraj Bansal, Advocate vice

Mr. Sumeet Daniel, Advocate.

O R D E R:

Sureshwar Thakur (District Judge) President:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant avers that, on, 12.11.2007, he booked a parcel with the OP No.2, containing computer components, valuing Rs.12,500/-, to be delivered at, Compro, SCO 118-19, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, for which the OP No.2, charged Rs.60/- as courier charges. The complainant avers that the parcel so booked with the OP No.2, was promised to be delivered to the addressee, by the OP No.2, within 24 hours, but till date the said parcel was neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to the complainant. Hence, it is averred that there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in not delivering the consignment to the consignee and accordingly relief to the extent, as detailed, in the relief clause, be awarded in favour of the complainant.

2. The OPs in its written version to the complaint raised preliminary objection vis-à-vis maintainability of the complaint, inasmuch, as, limited liability of Rs.100/-. On merits, it is contended that the consignment was booked by the complainant without disclosing, its, contents and has accepted the terms and conditions of the booking, hence, cannot claim over and above Rs.100/-. It is further contended that the consignment so booked by the complainant was lost during its transit. Hence, it is denied, that, there was any deficiency in service on their part or that they have indulged in an unfair trade practice.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and, have, also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the complaint.

4. The complainant, is, aggrieved by the act of the OPs, in, not having delivered the consignment to the consignee. The OPs resist, the, above grievance and in a detailed reply, has, contended that theirs liability, is, limited only to the extent of Rs.100/- , as per the terms and conditions.

5. The OPs have contended in its reply that the consignments, so booked with it, by the complainant, could not be delivered to the addressee, as it was lost in transit, as such, especially, when the complainant avers, its, non-delivery to the addressee, and the OPs having admitted the fact of its non-delivery on account of the consignment having been lost in transit, hence, sprouts the inference, that, the OPs, has not delivered the parcel to the addressee, hence, has, not, only committed deficiency in service, rather, also, indulged in an unfair trade practice.

6. The complainant claims compensation for non-delivery of the consignments to the consignee, to, the tune of Rs.67,620/-. However, the OPs, is, deriving the benefit from the courier receipt, hence, seek to restrict their liability, to the extent of Rs.100/-. However, in the light of the case law as reported in 2004(1) Judicial Reports Consumer (NC) in case Osuri Devendra Phanikar versus Desk to Desk Couriers and Cargo Ltd., we are not in agreement with the submission as put forth by the OPs, that, theirs liabilities, is, restricted, only to Rs.100/-, as detailed in the courier receipt, for, the reason that their does, not, exist any proof qua the fact that the terms and conditions, of, the courier receipt were explained to the complainant and, then, came to sign the said receipt. Moreover, we have not been apprised of any condition which interdicted the OP from opening the parcel, for determining the value of, its, contents, hence, when, it, was open for the OP, to, have recourse to open the parcel for determining the value of its, contents, theirs not having chosen to do so, gives fillip to the inference that the value as quantified by the complainant on affidavit, which has remained un-controverted, is, truthful. Hence, the OPs, cannot derive any benefit from the receipt detailing the fact that theirs liability is restricted only to the extent of Rs.100/-, especially when the parcel has been, admittedly, lost in transit, qua, which fact of its having been lost in transit, no cogent proof has been adduced, hence, leaving, open scope for the inference, of, its misappropriate, after its entrustment to them by the complainant.

7. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed and the OPs, jointly and severally, is, directed to refund the cost of the parcels, amounting to Rs.12,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, till actual payment is made. The litigation cost, is, quantified at Rs.1000/- payable by the OPs, to the complainant. This order shall be complied with by the OPs, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned counsel for the parties undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. In the above terms, the complaint stands disposed of. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.