Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/468/2018

Vijay Kumar Kalra - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Express Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Bhardwaj

02 May 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/468/2018
Date of Institution	:	25/09/2018
Date of Decision	:	02/05/2019

 

Vijay Kumar Kalra, Permanent R/o H.No.1028, Sec.69, Mohali, at present R/o H.No.1400, Sec. 35-B, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1.     DTDC Express Limited, DTDC House, 3, Victoria Road, Bangalore – 560047, through its Managing Director.

2.     DTDC Express Limited, Cabin No.10, SCO 96-97, 1^st Floor, Sector 34, Chandigarh – 160034, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	SH.RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Ms.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Aakash Dalal, Vice Counsel for Sh.Bhupinder Singh Walia, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER DR.S.K.Sardana, member

1.         In brief, the Complainant had booked a Consignment No.Z65020828 on 02.07.2018 with Opposite Party No.2 and paid Rs.400/- for “Express Courier”, vide Receipt Annexure C-1. The said Consignment carried medicines worth Rs.20,670/- (Bill Annexure C-2), sent by the Complainant to his son-in-law, who is a serving Army Officer and returned from a posting at high altitude and the said medicines were immediately required by him at Pune i.e. the place of his present posting. It has been averred that at the time of booking, it was disclosed to the Opposite Parties that the Consignment carried medicines, upon which the Opposite Party No.2 asked the Complainant to get it booked through “Express Courier” and an amount of Rs.400/- was charged and assured that the same shall be delivered within five days. However, the said Consignment never reached its destination and the Complainant duly complained to the Opposite Parties regarding the same and time & again visited their office between 07.07.2018 and 22.07.2018. The Complainant also wrote e-mails/ registered letter Annexure C-3 to C-6 and thereafter, the Complainant lodged his claim, but the Opposite Parties offered only Rs.400/- as refund i.e. the courier charges and refused to pay the cost of medicines. Eventually, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 09.08.2018 upon the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-9 to C-11), but the same did not fructify. Hence the complainant has brought this consumer complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties contested the complaint and filed their joint reply, inter alia, admitting the booking of consignment by the Complainant. It has been pleaded that the Opposite Parties were not aware of the contents of the consignment as nothing was disclosed about the medicines to them at the time of booking. It has been urged that according to the terms & conditions printed on the back of the printed receipt, the liability of the DTDC for any loss or shipment or for any loss or damage of the shipment would be limited to Rs.100/- only. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5.         We have gone through the entire record and have also heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Parties.
6.         It is evident from Receipt Annexure C-1 that one consignment was sent through the Opposite Parties to Pune on 02.07.2018. It is alleged by the Complainant that the medicines worth Rs.20,670/- sent vide Annexure C-1 were never delivered by the Opposite Parties to the addressee. Since the consignment was meant for the son-in-law of the Complainant, the Complainant tried to contact the Opposite Parties by every possible means, but all the efforts of the Complainant failed to fructify.  
7.         Per contra, Opposite Parties admitted that the subject consignment had been lost and for this loss, they offered, as per the terms & conditions, a sum of Rs.100/- being their limited liability.
8.         We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above arguments. We feel that in the instant case, the circumstances point out that the parcel containing medicines sent by the Complainant, was not delivered to the consignee, due to negligent act or default of the official/ officials of the Opposite Parties. Admittedly, the required charges to send the consignment in question to his relative were paid by the Complainant, but the parcel in question could not reach its destination. Thus, it was a fit case for holding a proper inquiry and to fix the responsibility of the delinquent, but instead of doing so, the Opposite Parties are taking shelter of their terms & conditions to fix their liability up to Rs.100/- only. Needless to mention here that Opposite Parties have not produced any kind of report on record, according to which they have made any report of holding any kind of inquiry about the lost consignment.
9.         Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that no liability, except for the one specifically undertaken (limited liability) of Rs.100/- can be fastened upon them. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, but we are not impressed with the same. Pertinently, the consignment note/receipt is not signed by the Complainant and the conditions mentioned thereon are of a small print, which do not appear to have been explained to the Complainant. There is thus clear deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties as the consignment was not delivered to the addressee. But the fact remains that there was deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties for which the Complainant needs to be adequately compensated. Otherwise also, in view of judgments in the cases of Blue Dart Express Limited Vs. Stephen Livera (R.P. No.393 of 1997 (NC) decided on 14.12.2001) and Blaze Flash Couriers (P) Ltd. Vs. Rohit J. Poladiya & Anr.-I(2008) CPJ 452 (NC), it is the liability of the Opposite Parties to compensate the complainant for the loss caused to him by misplacing the parcel.  The Complainant has aptly proved on record the factum of purchase of the Medicines vide Annexure C-2, which were lost by the Opposite Parties, therefore, to our mind, it would be in the fitness of things to order the Opposite Parties to indemnify the Complainant the loss caused to him on account of their casual, non-responsive and deficient services.
10.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed against Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

[a]     To pay an amount of Rs.20,670/- to the Complainant;

[b]     To refund Rs.400/- as the courier service charges to the Complainant.

[c]     To pay Rs.7,500/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[d]    To pay Rs.7,500/- as cost of litigation;

 

11.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] to [c] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,500/-, from the date of institution of this Complaint, till it is paid. 
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
02/05/2019	[Dr.S.K.Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”