Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/375/2016

Anuj Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s DTDC - Opp.Party(s)

Tajinder Kaur Johal

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/375/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	24/05/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	22/08/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Anuj Malhotra S/o Shri K.B. Malhotra, resident of House No.2970/1, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

VERSUS

 

(1)  M/s DTDC, Regd. Office No.3, Victoria Road, Bengaluru, through its Managing Director.

 

(2)  M/s DTDC, SCO 267, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Ms. Tajinder Kaur Johal, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. B.S. Walia, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that the Complainant had sent a Courier on 06.01.2016 under prime time plus service of DTDC with consignment no. E72181768 to his Head Office at Mumbai by paying an amount of Rs.330/- vide receipt Annexure C-1. The Complainant opted for premium service of DTDC as documents were of important nature and required to reach office by 07.01.2016. However, when the said Courier did not reach Mumbai even on 08.01.2016, the Complainant wrote e-mails dated 08.01.2016 and 09.01.2016, but the Opposite Parties maintained a stoic silence and did not divulge the reasons for delay. It has been alleged that as per the policy of DTDC regarding prime time service, the money charged for the courier service would be refunded immediately in case of delay in service, however despite of 3 personal visits to the Regional Office at Chandigarh and e-mails the same has not been refunded. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties, in their joint reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case have pleaded that the Complainant booked the parcel on 06.01.2016 and on 07.01.2016 office of the addressee was closed where the Parcel was to be delivered and, therefore, the Parcel could not be delivered on 07.01.2016 and accordingly, Parcel was delivered on 08.01.2016 at 10:25 AM i.e. immediately on opening of the Office of the addressee. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

 

6.      It is evident from Annexure C-1, coupled with the affidavit of the Complainant, that he paid an amount of Rs.330/- to the Opposite Parties for sending a Courier to his Head Office at Mumbai on 06.01.2016. As per the case of the Complainant, the said Courier was not delivered at its destination on the promised date i.e. 07.01.2016. It has further been alleged that as per the Policy of DTDC regarding prime time service the money charged for the courier service was to be refunded immediately in case of delay in service, but the same has not been refunded by the Opposite Parties, till date.

 

7.      The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that on 07.01.2016 the office of the addressee was closed where the consignment was to be delivered, and therefore the same could not be delivered on 07.01.2016 and accordingly was delivered on 08.01.2016 immediately after opening of the office of the addressee.

 

8.      As far as the allegation of the Complainant regarding guaranteed service of the Opposite Parties for time bound deliveries of consignment is concerned, it is obvious from the Consignment Tracking Details (Annexure R-1) that the Opposite Parties made an effort to deliver the courier on 07.01.2016, but the office was closed. As against it, in order to show that 07.01.2016 was not a holiday, the Complainant has placed on record list of holidays of the Bank where the parcel was to be delivered.

 

9.      Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that even if 07.01.2016 was a working day, there is every possibility that the delivery boy/ representative of the Opposite Parties reached the premises of the Bank after it is being closed in the evening due to which the subject consignment could not be delivered. It is also evident from Annexure R-1 (Consignment Tracking Details) that the parcel was delivered on the next very day i.e. 08.01.2016 immediately after opening of the office. Furthermore, the Complainant has not placed on record any documentary evidence to substantiate that he suffered any physical or financial loss on account of non-delivery of the parcel by the Opposite Parties. At any rate, there is no specific allegation in the entire Complaint that due to negligent services rendered by the Opposite Parties the Complainant suffered any kind of loss. Thus we find that the whole gamut of facts and circumstances leans towards the side of the Opposite Parties. The case is lame of strength and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

 

10.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

 

11.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

22^nd August, 2016                                            

Sd/-

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                                Sd/-   

[SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER   

Sd/-                    

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”                                                                           MEMBER