BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 29^th DAY OF MARCH, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1483/2019

PRESENT:

SRI. RAJU K.S:MEMBER

                    SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Sri.Bharat.K
S/o.K.S.Varaprasad,

Aged about 28 Years,

R/at Nester Raga Apartments,

Door No.C601,6th Floor,

Mahadevpura,

Bengaluru-560048

Karnataka.                             ……          COMPLAINANT

(Party in person)

V/s

M/s.DTDC Courier Service
No.269, Lahari Towers, 1^st Main,

albert Victor Road,

Chamarajpet,

Bengaluru-560018.                          ……OPPOSITE PARTY-1

M/s.DTDC Corporate Office
DTDC House, No.3,

Victoria Road,

Bengaluru-560047.                            …… OPPOSITE PARTY-2

M/s. DTDC,

Maa Durga Enterprises
No.6, Vrundavan Vihar Complex,

Opp. R.F.Camp,

Opp. Ramol Tolltax, Ramol,

Ahemadabad-382449.                             …… OPPOSITE PARTY-3

(Opposite party No.2 and 3 is dismissed, on order dt.18.02.2021)

*****

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER

        The present complaint is filed U/sec. 12 of CP Act-1986 with a prayer to direct the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.55,000/- and to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and to grant such other reliefs as this commission deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

2.     Brief facts of the complaint is that;

The complainant is the party in person. The opposite party is the courier company. The complaint is about missing of consignment of the complainant. The complainant booked opposite party courier service on 03.09.2018 and the opposite party had issued the consignment Details with No.-D45043997. The complainant tracked the status of his package delivery on opposite party website. Initially it was showing “the consignment has reached Bangalore and is in transit”. For over three weeks of time the status was showing “in transit” but never received his package.

        3. The complainant approached opposite party customer care multiple times but of no use. After one month from the date of the package courier when the complainant contacted opposite party Ahmedabad branch, they confirmed him that the package had reached Bangalore. It had got lost there in Bangalore due to the negligence of the Bangalore DTDC courier persons.

4. When the complainant contacted both Bangalore and Ahmedabad branches they were just blaming one another. The complainant had not received his courier package till filing of this complaint. The complainant had lost his valuable belongings. The acts of opposite party caused mental suffering and financial hardship to the complainant. He left with no other alternatives, approached this commission for the redressal of his grievances under the consumer protection act 1986 for the deficiency of service of the opposite party. Hence, this complaint.

5.     The notice of this complaint was duly served on the opposite party No.1, remained absent and placed Ex-parte. Despite sufficient opportunities, the complainant failed to take steps against opposite party 2 and 3. Complaint against opposite party 2 and 3 came to be dismissed.

6.     The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party?

ii) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled for?

iii) What order ?

      7.  Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 & 2:  In the Negative.

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

8. POINT NO.1 & 2:-

To avoid the repetition of facts of the complaint we have discussed both the points together. The complainant had filed this complaint for the alleged deficiency of services and unfair trade practice of the opposite party.

9.     The point to be noted here is that this commission has observed that the notice of this complaint was duly served upon the opposite party and opposite party remained absent and placed ex-parte. Further on perusal of the order sheet, it appears that the case was posted for the evidence affidavit of the complainant on 18.02.2021.

10.   Since 18.03.2021 till this day the complainant remained absent and didn't let his affidavit evidence. It is the burden on the complainant to prove his complaint through his affidavit evidence and documentary evidence as contemplated under Section 13(2)(b)(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant did not file any affidavit in the form of his evidence.

11.      In addition Section 13(4)(iii) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 which contemplates that the district commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the code of civil procedure, while trying a suit in respect of reception of evidence as affidavits. Therefore, the complainant shall tender the sworn affidavit evidence by entering into witness box. That has not been complied by the complainant in this present complaint in hand. The complainant had failed to prove the burden casted on him. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of services as alleged.  Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 and 2 in negative.

12. POINT NO.3:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

   Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 29^th day of MARCH, 2023)   

      (REKHA SAYANNAVAR)   (RAJU K.S)    (SHIVARAMA, K)    

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

-NIL-

Documents marked for the complainant side:

-NIL-

 Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

    (REKHA SAYANNAVAR)  (RAJU K.S)   (SHIVARAMA, K)