D.O.F:30/04/2021
D.O.O:15/12/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No.88/2021
Dated this, the 15th day of December 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Unnikrishnan. T
Anchammail-House,
Kolathur-PO, : Complainant
Chengala, Kasaragod-671541
(Adv. T.C.Narayanan)
And
- The DTDC Couriers & Cargo,
DTDC Head Office
DTDC House,
No.3, Victoria Road,
Bangalore 560047,
(Represented by its Owner)
- The DTDC Couriers & Cargo,
Narain City Branch,
H-46, Ground Floor,
Kedarpal Hospital,: Opposite Parties
Bali Nagar, Delhi 110015
- The DTDC Couriers & Cargo,
Kuttikol Branch,
POST- Kuttikol,
Chengala – Via,
Kasaragod 671541
(Adv.Binu Mathew OP 1,2&)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-
That the complainant was working abroad prior to covid-19 pandamic and returned to India during covid -19. When he was returning from gulf his manager kept his PC with her and when she also returned to New Delhi, where she was permanently residing she brought the said lap top of the complainant and entrusted the same to Opposite Party No:2 to dispatch to the complainant. The said PC made by apple company is very costly and purchased the same for Rs. 1,25,000/- and al valuable data’s and documents of the complainant were stored in the said PC. The Opposite Party No:1 is the head office of DTDC courier and cargo Ltd the Opposite Party No:2 is the Delhi office of the DTDC and Opposite Party No:3 is the branch office of DTDC at Kuttikkol. The Opposite Party offered prompt and easy delivery of consignment when parcel is entrusted to them. The manager of the complainant entrusted the said Apple i mac PC to the Opposite Party No:2 to dispatch to the complainant. Thus the said consigner entrusted the same by packing the same safely by inserting thermocol inside the package in the card board box. The complainant had booked PC weighing 25kg from the office of the Opposite Party No:2 for a consideration of Rs. 4710/- to be payable to Opposite Party No:3. The weight includes the packaging materials, and the net weight of PC is only 10kg’s. The disclosed value of the laptop is Rs. 75,000/-. The Opposite Party No: 2 insured the consignment for Rs. 48,000/- and the complainant transferred the consideration including the insurance charge of Rs. 4,710/- by google pay to the Opposite Party No:2 on 19/04/2021. The Opposite Party No:3 received the consignment on 19/04/2021 but it was completely broken and non-repairable. When looked into the booking they haven’t added any insurance for the consignment. There was No fragile or handle with care sticker pasted on the consignment. The packing was completely destroyed and whole consignment weighted only 11kgs. The complainant is really upset for the broken product and mishandling and falsifying by the opposite parties. The complainant made complaint to Opposite Party No:3 against DTDC for this issue and requested to compensate for the damages and release the insured amount. But not redressed the complaint till date. On account of the Opposite Party’s aforesaid failure and neglect to rectify the complaint the complainant suffered heavy loss and mental agony. Therefore the complainant is seeking a direction against Opposite Parties to pay the price of the article entrusted to Opposite Parties along with charges paid and insurance, compensation etc. in total a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest.
The Opposite Parties filed version stating that the allegations made in the complaint are incorrect, false and denied, those that are specifically admitted or otherwise delt with here under. According to Opposite Parties the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer and he has no locus standi to file this complaint. Moreover this honourable forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain the above complaint. The Opposite Parties further states that complaint is time barred. The complainant had not given notice or any complaint within the statutory time limit regarding the alleged damage, loss etc. It is admitted that consigner had booked a consignment through the second Opposite Party on 13/04/2021. An amount of Rs.4,710/- alone was collected towards fright charge alone from the consigner for the service. At the time of booking the consigner had not declared the contents of the consignment nor its value and did not also produce any document in support of the same. The complainant had not paid any additional charges to carry any valuables or to insure the contents of that consignment. The consignment was booked for carriage by air mode. The Opposite Parties further state that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Opposite Parties. The exaggerated false claim of the assessment of damage at Rs. 4,00,000/- is absolutely false and specifically denied. According to Opposite Parties, the above complaint is without any merits, filed on an experimental basis to gain undue monitory advantage from the Opposite Parties. So the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs with Opposite Parties
Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The documents produced are marked as Ext A1 to A5. The issues raised for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency in service / negligence on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief?
For convenience issues No:1 ,2 and 3 can be discussed together.
The complainant’s Apple i Mac computer was consigned to his home address by his manager on 19/4/2021 with Opposite Party No:2 for a consideration of Rs. 4710/-. The total weight of consignment was 25kg. The original receipts issued by Opposite Party No:2 to the complainant is marked as Ext A1. The original receipt of insurance is marked as Ext A2. Copy of the receipt is marked as Ext A3, the copy of the complaint to the SHO Bedakam is marked as Ext A4, copy of the e mail letter to Opposite Party No:3 is Ext A5, the said computer was sent for an urgent purpose but the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the same as per their offer. On opening the consignment the complainant shocked to see that his laptop was broken into pieces. Certainly complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony due to the careless handling of the parcel by opposite parties. We carefully gone through the affidavit and documents produced by the complainant and version filed by Opposite Parties, Ext A1 to A5 proves that a parcel is consigned to the complainant which is duly insured for a sum of Rs. 48,000/-. But Opposite Parties failed to prove that the consignment was safely delivered to the complainant. Due to the dereliction of duty and neglect on the part of Opposite Parties the complainant had suffered heavy loss and mental agony which the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate. Even though Opposite Parties filed version they did not made any further steps to prove that they delivered the parcel in good condition.
The claim of the complainant in total is Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest. But he did not produce any documentary evidence to prove the exact price of his Apple I MAC laptop. Also whether the insurance amount is available to the complainant or not is not mentioned in the complainant. It is true that Opposite Parties are liable to compensate for the loss and mental agony under gone by the complainant due to the damage of his laptop. All Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the loss of the complainant. In absence of contra evidence we holds that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case with cost of the proceedings.
In the result complaint is allowed directing Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to the complainant along with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only)
The time for compliance is 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Original receipt issued by Opposite party
A2: Original receipt of insurance
A3. Copy of the receipt
A4: Copy of the complaint
A5: Copy of the email letter
Witness Examined
Pw1: Unnikrishnan. T
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
