IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 13th day of July, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 139/2020 (filed on 22-09-2020)
Petitioner : Sobha Suresh Alias Sobha Chandran,
Ushus, Kollad, Kottayam.
Pin – 686029
(Adv. Siby Jacob Pampady)
Vs.
Opposite Party : Manager,
DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Muttathethu Building,
Baker Road, Near YWCA and
Axis Bank, Nagampadom,
Kottayam – 686001.
(Adv. M.C. Suresh and Adv. Mirza
Aslam Beg and Adv. Jayakrishnan R.)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
The case of the complainant is as follows,
Brief facts of the complaint is as follows:
Complainant is an employee of State Goods and Service Tax Department. Husband of the complainant who is at Kuwait and their younger son had sent a Fosil branded wrist watch and beauty products to the complainant on the occasion of their 25th wedding anniversary through the branch of the opposite party at Kuwait. The said consignment was sent on 24-8-20 at the office address of the complainant at Kottayam. The gift items were worth of Rs.15,000/- and the husband of the complainant had spent Rs.1300/-as the freight charges. At the time of receiving the consignment the opposite party did not ask any more documents. On 27-8-20 complainant had received a message stating that her address is not matching. On the receipt of the said message on 28-8-20 ie. is the day of her wedding anniversary. She had obtained a certificate stating that she is a staff of law office of the GST department and attained age of 50. Along with the said certificate the complainant had uploaded copy her official identity card in the website name www.dhlindia-kyc. After that the complainant received a message stating that the name is not matching. Then the complainant uploaded the one and the same certificate certifying that Sobha Chandran and Soba Suresh are one and the same person along with copies of first and last pages of her passport, Adhar card , pan card, marriage certificate and the copy her official phone bill in the website. Even though she had uploaded these document on several times there was no result. Thereafter she had complained to the toll free number of the opposite party. But it was in vain. After that the complainant approached the office of the opposite party at Kottayam and sent all documents to expresskty@dhl.com. But her attempts became vain. It is averred in the complaint that act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and she had suffered much mental agony on her 25th wedding anniversary due to the act of the opposite party.
Upon notice opposite party filed version contending as follows:
The opposite party is a company incorporated under the companies Act. A shipment was booked with the opposite party under AWB 4303458165 by one Suresh from Kuwait in favour of the complainant. The said shipment was in one piece weighing 600gms and the declared values of the shipment was 75US$ containing a watch (being gift). As per customs law of India, any shipment arriving/imported to India requires the clearance of Customs Authority. In the absence of the customs clearance, no shipment will be delivered to its destination. For the purpose of customs clearance, the shipper has to upload its KYC documents, which is as pre-requisite under the customs laws and its regulation. It is the obligation of all the courier companies through whom shipments are imported to India, to ask the consignees to comply with KYC norms for import customs clearances of the shipment. The opposite parties had contacted the complainant on 25th August 202 and requested the complainant to upload the requisite documents such as IEC, GST/Pan, AD code and authorization letter. Opposite party on 26th August again contacted complainant and requested to upload the aforesaid documents. Though the complainant uploaded the documents on 27-8-2020 the same were rejected due to mismatch of KYC documents. The complainant had submitted her KYC like adhar card, passport etc. However the said documents did not contain the address of Law Office, SGST Complex, Nagampadom, Kottayam. Hence as per the prevailing KYC rules, it was not accepted by the system and KYC was not at all completed.
It is submitted in the version that in the event of delivery of shipment by the opposite party without completion of KYC may lead to the cancellation of the license of the opposite party along with fine and penal actions by the Customs department.
Opposite party had rigorously followed up with complainant for almost one month to upload KYC documents, containing the name and address of Law office as provided in the shipment. However the complainant failed to do so and finally complainant confirmed to return back the shipment to its origin.
Opposite party informed the complainant in writing, to write a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs with available documents for his consideration. However the shipper informed that consignee had filed the present consumer complaint. It is further submitted in the version that all the shipments are carried by the opposite party as per its terms and conditions of carriage.
The shipment was stuck for import clearance by the Customs authority, for which the opposite party cannot be held liable.
There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and exhibits A1 to A14 were marked from the side of the complainant. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced from the side of the opposite party.
On the evaluation of complaint, version and evidence on records we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties.?
2. If so what are reliefs and costs?.
Point number 1
The specific case of the complainant is that on the occasion her 25th wedding anniversary her husband and younger son sent a Fosil branded wrist watch and beauty products to the complainant as gift by availing the service of the opposite party from Kuwait.
But the consignment was not delivered to her by the opposite party by stating that the address was not matching. Though she had uploaded one and same certificate certifying that the Sobha Chandran and Soba Suresh are one and the same person along with copies of first and last pages of her passport, Adhar card, pan card , marriage certificate and the copy of her official phone bill in the website, opposite party did not deliver the consignment to her.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite party stating that though they had rigorously followed up with complainant for almost one month to upload the KYC documents, containing the name and address of Law office as provided in the shipment, the complainant failed to do so and finally complainant confirmed
to return back the shipment to its origin.
There is no dispute on the fact that the consignment was entrusted to the opposite party at Kuwait by the husband of the complainant vide exhibit A3 way bill on 24-8-20. On perusal of Exhibit A3 we can see that the address of the consignee is given as Law office, Sobha Suesh, SGST Complex, Nadgampodam.
It is submitted by the opposite party in version that they had contacted the complainant on 25th August 2020 and requested the complainant to upload the requisite documents such as IEC, GST /Pan, AD code and authorization letter.
Exhibit A1 is the copy of the passport of the complainant. Exhibit A2 is the one and same certificate issued by the village officer, Panachikkadu village dated 12-7-20 certifying that that the Sobha Suresh and Sobha Chandran is one and same person. Exhibit A8 is the certificate issued by the Law officer, SGST department Kottayam certifying that the complainant is working in the law office SGSTD Complex Kottayam as a senior clerk and her date of birth is 15-5-1970. It is proved by exhibit A12 email that the husband of the complainant informed the opposite party that they had uploaded the documents as directed by the opposite party. In exhibit A12 he further requested to redirect the consignment to the home address of the complainant. On perusal of exhibitA7 which is the copy of the Adhar card we can see that address of the complainant is Ushus, Panachikkadu, Kollad, Kottayam. Vide Exhibit A12 and A12(b) he had requested the opposite party to redirect the consignment to the address shown in Exhibit A8 adhar card.
However in the version opposite party did not disclose what action has taken by them to redirect the parcel. It is pertinent to not that the opposite party has no case that they cannot redirect the parcel to any other address than the address to which it was sent. Moreover the opposite party have no case that they had given proper advise to the complainant about the procedure to redirect the parcel as requested by the sender. It is bounden duty of the opposite party to inform the complainant and the sender that whether parcel could be redirected to other address and not.
If it is possible, being a service provider the opposite party is bound to give advice to the complainant about the procedure to redirect the parcel as requested by the sender.
The opposite party is bound to act as agent of the shipper and receiver for the purpose of custom clearance and complete the documentation for that purpose. On the basis of the above discussed evidence, we are of the opinion that, the opposite party, who acted for the complainant in handling the consignment had failed to file documents for the process of the customs clearance and further to redirect the consignment as requested by the sender. Though the opposite party has a case that they had returned the article to the sender they did not produce any evidence to prove their contention. This amount to imperfection and inadequacy in service provided by the opposite party and thereby committed deficiency in service. Therefore the point number 1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point number 2
The complainant pleaded that non delivering of the consignment by the opposite parties caused heavy mental agony to her. It is pertinent to note that the consignment is sent by the husband of the complainant as a gift on her on their 25th wedding anniversary. The complainant and her husband had some emotional attachment to said gift. No doubt, the complainant has suffered much mental agony by the act of deficiency in service from the opposite party. Considering the nature and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that allowing a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant will meet the ends of justice.
In the circumstances we allow the complaint in part and pass the following order.
- We direct the first opposite party to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the financial loss to the complainant due to the deficiency in service from the first opposite party.
- We direct the first opposite party to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand
only) as cost of litigation to the complainant
Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 13th July, 2022
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of passport
A2 –Copy of one and the same certificate in the name of complainant
A3 – E-way bill copy
A4 – Copy of marriage certificate
A5 – Letter dtd.23-04-2021 from complainant to the Deputy Commissioner of
Customs
A6 – Copy of PAN card
A7- Copy of adhar card in the name of petitioner
A8-Copy of certificate dtd.24-08-20 from the Law Officer, Commercial Tax
A9 –Copy of affidavit dtd.23-02-21 from Deputy Commissioner
A10- Copy of telephone bill
A11 – Copy of letter from complainant to the Deputy Commissioner of
Customs
A12 series –Copy of e-mail communication (2 nos.)
A13 series - Copy of e-mail communication (
A14-Copy of letter dtd.20-03-2021 from complainant to The Deputy Commissioner of Customs
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
