Dharmatma Singh - Complainant(s)


DTDC Courier - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Bikramjit Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate

22 Aug 2007


District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (Punjab)
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Govt. House No. 16-D, Civil Station, Near SSP Residence, Bathinda-151 001
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/125


DTDC Courier
DTDC Courier Cargo Limited,
DTDC Courier Cargo Limited






Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.


DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA (PUNJAB) CC No. 125 of 10.05.2007 Decided on : 22-08-2007 Dharmatma Singh S/o Sh. Surjit Singh R/o C/o Mohan Singh, H. No. 30624, Street No. 5/5, Jogi Nagar, Bathinda. ... Complainant Versus 1.DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, Near Railway Station, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner. 2.DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, Amritsar, through its Proprietor/Partner. 3.DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, Regd. Head Office, DTDC House No. 3, Victoria Road, Banglore. ...Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM : Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member For the Complainant : Sh. Bikaramjit Singh Ahluwalia,Advocate. For the Opposite party : Sh. M.S. Sidhu, Advocate. O R D E R LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT 1. A parcel containing some medicines was booked by the complainant with opposite party No.1 on 30.4.07 for delivery to Sh. Balraj Singh, resident of Plot No. 46, Sitara Avenue, Amritsar. Rs. 20/- were charged. Receipt No. T-19690822 was issued with the assurance that parcel would be delivered to the addressee within 48 hours. Opposite parties failed to deliver the same within this period. Rather it was kept by them in their office. Addressee was making inquiries from him for the parcel time and again and was complaining that it had not yet received. Inquiries were made by him (complainant) from the opposite parties, but they gave no satisfactory reply. Sh. Balraj Singh again inquired from him telephonically on 3.5.07. He (complainant) felt very small and humiliated due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties. He requested Sh. Balraj Singh to visit the office of opposite party No. 2 at Amritsar. Accordingly, Sh. Balraj Singh went there. Parcel was found lying in the office of opposite party No. 2 and was collected by him on 3.5.07. Complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is further alleged by him that he has undergone mental tension, agony, harassment and humiliation. Opposite parties caused loss to his reputation. In these circumstances, complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as `Act') has been preferred by him seeking direction from this forum to the opposite parties to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony, botheration, harassment and loss to his reputation. 2. Opposite parties filed their version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form. Terms and conditions were read over to the complainant when the consignment was booked. According to them, they are liable to pay Rs. 100/- as damages. They deny that any undertaking was given regarding the delivery within 48 hours. Sealed consignment was booked without disclosing its contents. No declaration of consignment was made by him. Sending medicines under courier is prohibited. Consignee was not available at the given address to receive the consignment. Ultimately consignment was delivered to him. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint. 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his two affidavits (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), affidavit of Sh. Balraj Singh (Ex. C-3) and courier receipt (Ex. C-4). 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties affidavit (Ex. R-1) of Sh. Jatinder Sethi, R.M. has been tendered in evidence. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the complainant. 6. Fact that consignment was got booked on 30.4.07 by the complainant with opposite party No. 1 vide courier receipt, copy of which is Ex. C-4, is not in dispute. Material question for determination is as to whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant alleges that consignment booked was containing medicines and this parcel was to be handed over to Sh. Balraj Singh at Amritsar within 48 hours. Opposite parties could not hand over the parcel to Sh. Balraj Singh. He telephonically inquired from him (complainant) even on 3.5.07 on account of which he felt ashamed and that ultimately Sh. Balraj Singh had received the consignment on 3.5.07 from the office of opposite party No. 2. For this complainant is relying upon his own affidavits Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2 and the affidavit Ex. C-3 of Sh. Balraj Singh. Opposite parties in the reply of the complaint state that consignee was not available at the given address for delivering the consignment. For this, they have placed and proved on record affidavit Ex. R-1 of Sh. Jatinder Sethi posted as Regional Manager of DTDC at Chandigarh. Complainant could not show us the rules and regulations of the DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited or any other arrangement or contract according to which the opposite parties were bound to deliver the consignment within 48 hours from the date of its booking. In the absence of any contract and from the fact that consignment booked on 30.4.07 was collected by Sh. Balraj Singh on 3.5.07, it is difficult to conclude that there is inordinate and unreasonable delay in delivering the consignment. Sh. Balraj Singh in his affidavit Ex. C-3 has not stated in so many words that from 1.5.07 till he had gone to the office of opposite party No. 2 on 3.5.07 he remained available throughout at the address recorded on the courier's receipt Ex. C-4. In these circumstances, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is not proved. 7. In the result, complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room. Pronounced : 22-08-2007 (Lakhbir Singh ) President (Hira Lal Kumar ) Member (Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member