Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/21/60

Kuljinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Courier Service - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Amrit Kumar Sharma, Adv.

21 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

RUPNAGAR

 

CC No. 60 of 26.08.2021

Decided on :21.04.2023

 

Kuljinder Singh aged about 24 years son of Malkiat Singh R/o Village MansuhaKhurad Tehsil and District Rupnagar (Punjab)

                    …..Complainant.

Versus

1. DTDC, Courier Service Shop No. 2882, Nehru Nagar Near College Road Ropar, Tehsil and District Rupnagar through ITS Prop. Dinesh Kumar
2. DTDC Courier and Cargo ltd.No.4, Parkash Market, Opposite HDFC Bank, Limited, Dharampura, Patiala, District Patiala, 147001, through its Manager
3. DTDC Express Limited warehouse ground 1^st and 2^nd Floor, SCO No.267, Chandigarh, Apex Sector 35, Chandigah,

2^nd address Regional Office, DTDC Express Limited Plot No.198, Industrial Area, Phase II, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                            ……Opposite Parties                

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

QUORUM:

SH.KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

SH.RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh.Amrit Kumar Sharma, Advocate

For OP1                         :         Sh.Arvind Kumar Rishi, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Exparte

For OP3.                        :         Sh. Ramesh Kumar Kaushal, Advocate 

 

ORDER

PER  KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

 

In the present complaint, the counsel for complainant has averred that complainant the complainant had purchased Air pods, IMEI No.

 

GK6XLBAV/MMT worth Rs. 14000/- on dated 24-5-2021 from Dashmesh Telecom, Maha Singh market, Cinema Road, Cheeka Tehsil and District kaithal vide bill No.957 dated 24/5/2021. After purchasing the said Air Pods complainant send the same to ,Mohd. (Sumit Bhai) Shop No. 2, Manish Market Near Jaaanjj Market Bhagatalao, Surat through courier service of OP No. 1 on dated 12-6- 2021 and OP no. 1 had issued a receipt of the same bearing No. T03757485 dated 12-6-2021 and OP no. 1 assured complainant that the parcel will be delivered to Mohammad within 10 days. After ten days, as assured by OP no. 1,complainant confirm about the said parcel from OP no.l, but OP no. 1 did not give any satisfactory reply to complainant, and said to complainant come after 10 days for confirmation of said parcel and in the first week of August 2021 complainant visit on the shop of OP no.l, but again OP no.l did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and put the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter complainant checked online statusof the consignment then complainant came, to know that the said parcel was not delivered to Mohammad at Surat and consignment has been lost. After that complainant visit on the shop of OP.no. 1 and asked about the same then OP no. 1 and OP no. 1 told to complainant that he will confirm about the exact status of said parcel from OP no. 2 as the OP no. 2 is the main Branch of said courier service. Till today neither said parcel was delivered to Mohammad at Surat nor returned to the complainant.Lastly, prayer has been made that the OPs be directed to make payment of Rs.14000/- as price of the airpods and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10000/- as litigation expenses with interest @ 18% PA till its realization.

2.      Upon notice, OP1 have appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections; that the present complaint is neither competent nor maintainable in the eyes of law against the OP No.1. The complaint filed the present complaint only to harm and harass the answering OP, so the complainant is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The OP No.1 is not liable to pay amount or any compensation to the complainant; that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the answering OP; that the complaint has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Hon’ble Commission and has not disclosed the true picture of the dispute to this Hon’ble commission. It is complainant who is harassing and humiliating OP by not making the payment of due to him; that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis- joinder of necessary party. The complainant has not made the party to the regional office/head office in the present complaint. The regional office/head office registered under the companies act 1956. The OP No.1 is only booking office on behalf of regional office and it acts as a carrier of small parcels and packets on door to door basis which is popularly known as courier service; that the complaint has falsely alleged in his complainant that the air ponds which was booked through courier service of OP No.1 which was worth of Rs. 14,000/- but at the time of booking of parcel through courier service the complainant has disclosed that the value of the said parcel the self-declaration was given by the complainant to the OP No.1 at that time; t0hat the complainant has booked the Air pods through courier service of OP No.1 to Mohammad at Surat. The OP.No.1 booked the courier and further sent the courier to Chandigarh warehouse at DTDC express ltd ground , 1^st and 2^nd floor, SCO NO. 267, Chandigarh, Apex, Sector-35 Chandigarh and thereafter the regional office has further sent the courier from Chandigarh to Surat; that on 16.07.21 the courier of the complainant received by the Surat Hub office which is duly shown in the tracking history/report and  19.07.21 the parcel of the complainant went out for delivery from surat Hub office to the concerned person, but the same was not delivered to the concerned person and on the same day it is shown in the tracking report that the consignment has been lost. Copy of the tracking history/report is attached herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Commission. The OP No.1 has rightly sent the courier of the complainant at surat and the OPNo.1 is not at fault if the courier/parcel of the complaint after reaching at surat has lost, hence the present complainant is not maintainable against the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. The OP No.1 is not liable to pay and compensation; that the present complaint is purely misuse of process of law as the complainant has not right to file the complaint against the answering OP; that the instant complaint is devoid of any merits as the complainant has filed to make out any case against the answering OP. It is submitted that no cause of action has accrued in favors of the complainant and the against the OP No.1, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs as it is evidence that the complaint has been filed only to harass and make illegal gain from answering OP; that as per the terms and conditions which are mentioned on the overleaf of this receipt are an agreement between the parties, clause 16 (d) is dealing with the limitation of liberty laying down that law of DTDC for any loss or damages to the shipment will be strictly limited to Rs. 100/- for shipment which item include all documents or parcels consigned through DTDC by the shipper clause of the terms and conditions of this receipt, which constitute an agreement between the parties clearly lays down that the liability of the DTDC or any loss of shipment or for any loss of damages of the shipment will be strictly limited to Rs. 100/- only for each shipment. On merit, it is stated It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has falsely alleged in this para that the value of Air Pod was Rs. 14,000/- but  at the time of booking of parcel through courier service the complainant has disclosed that the value of the said booked is Rs.200/- regarding the value of said parcel the self declaration was given by the complainant to the OP No.1 at that time. It is further stated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint. The complainant has booked courier through courier service of OP No.1 and the OP No.1 has issued receipt to the complainant. No assurance of any delivery time was given to the complainant. On 16.07.2021 the courier of the complainant received by the surat Hub office which is duly shown in the tracking history/report and 19.07.2021 the parcel of the complainant went out for delivery form surat Hub office to the concerned person and on the same day it is shown in the tracking report that the consignment has been lost. The OP No.1 has rightly sent the courier of the complainant at surat and the OP No.1 is not at fault if the courier/parcel of the complainant is not maintainable against the OP No.1 and the same is liable to be dismissed against OP No.1 and the OP No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. The complainant never visited the office of OP No.1. It is pertinent to mention here that as per tracking report on 16.07.2021 the courier of the complainant received by the surat Hub officer which is duly shown in the tracking history/report and 19.07.2021 the parcel of the complainant went out for delivery from surat Hub office to the concerned person. It is pertinent to mention here that the answering OP No.1 has rightly sent the courier of the complainant at surat and the OP No.1 is not at fault if the courier and the OP No.1 is not at fault if the courier/ parcel of the complainant after reaching at surat has lost, hence the present complainant is not maintainable against the OP No.1 and the same is liable to be dismissed against OP No.1 and the OP No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation. Between the parties, clause 16 (d) is  dealing with the limitation of liberty laying down that law of DTDC for any loss or damage of the shipment will be strictly limited to Rs. 100/- only for each shipment. The complainant has never approached the answering OP for any query. Rather complainant has deal with regional office /head office through e-mail.  Lastly prayed to dismiss the complaint against the answering OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

3.      Upon notice, the OP2 has choosen to remain exparte vide order of this Commission.

4.      The learned counsel for the OP3 has also filed written reply taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed in view of express clause of arbitration provided in the terms and conditions mentioned on the overleaf of the consignment note. Is the clearly terms and conditions printed overleaf of this “please refer to only tendering a shipment to DTDC”. Clause 25 of the terms and conditions clearly lays down that in case of any dispute, the matter will be referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by the sender and the other by the DTDC. Thus, in view of the arbitration clause, the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complaint has not made claim within time. Clause 17 of the terms and conditions clearly lays down that “all claims in respect of loss or damages of consignment shall be made within a period of 30 days from the date of tendering a shipment to DTDC.  Any claim/ request received after this period shall not be entertained; that the complaint filed by the complaint is not maintainable because he has tried to misconstrue the contents of the policy of the company. On this point alone this complaint is liable to be rejected. On merits, it is stated that mere disclosing the contents of consignment at the belated stage would not given benefit to the complaint as the complainant has failed to disclose the contents of the consignment at the time of the booking which is evident from the receipt already placed on record by the complainant. It is submitted that no surety was given by the answering respondents at the time of booking of the consignment. In fact, the complainant never visited the shop of OP No.1. Therefore, no cause of action arises to the complaint to file the present complaint as submitted above. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against the answering OP.

5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties produced on the file their respective documents
6. We have heard learned the parties with their valuable assistance and have also gone through the record carefully.
7. During arguments, the contentions of learned counsel for parties are similar to the pleadings, so no need to reiterate the same.  The main controversy in the present complaint is whether the OP has deficient in providing service to complainant or not?
8. It is admitted fact that complainant had purchased Air pods, IMEI No.GK6XLBAV/MMT worth Rs. 14000/- on dated 24-5-2021 from Dashmesh Telecom, Maha Singh market, Cinema Road, Cheeka Tehsil and District kaithal vide bill No.957 dated 24/5/2021. After purchasing the said Air Pods complainant send the same to ,Mohd. (Sumit Bhai) Shop No. 2, Manish Market Near Jaaanjj Market Bhagatalao, Surat through courier service of OP No. 1 on dated 12-6- 2021 and OP no. 1 had issued a receipt of the same bearing No. T03757485 dated 12-6-2021 and OP no. 1 assured complainant that the parcel will be delivered to Mohammad within 10 days. After ten days, as assured by OP no.1, complainant confirms about the said parcel from OP No.l, but OP no. 1 did not give any satisfactory reply to complainant till date. Undisputedly, the value of the airpods, which were contained in the parcels, booked with the courier was Rs.200/- as it is evident from the documents placed on record by the complainant. The parcel was not delivered at the destination, this thing is proved by the complainant as per his evidence. It means that the officials of the courier agency were completely negligent, in performing their duties. Due to their negligence, loss to the tune of Rs.200/- was caused to the complainant on account of non delivery of the parcel.
9. The OP No.1 is only booking office. It acts as a courier of small parcels and packets on door to door basis, which is popularly known as courier services and OP1 has booked the courier on behalf of OPs No.3 & 4 i.e. DTDC  Express Limited, Panchkula. As per contract act for another or to represent another is dealing with third person. The person for whom such act is done or who is represented is called (principal).
10. . The law laid down by the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh in case titled as M/s DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited Vs Amrit Lal Satija, decided on 05.10.2012, wherein, the Hon’ble State Commission was upheld the order of District Commission, vide which the District Commission, has allowed the complaint.
11. .Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, and the evidence, on record was right, in coming to the conclusion, that a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, was caused to the complainant on account of lost of his parcel at the hands of the OPs, which contained the airpods. Therefore, the OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to pay Rs.200/- along with interest @ 6% per annum with compensation of Rs.3000/-. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. The said OPs are further directed to comply with the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.  Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

Dated:21.04.2023

 

 

 

 

                                                 (Ramesh Kumar Gupta)             (Ranvir Kaur)                                (Kuljit Singh)

                                                             Member                                Member                                        President