Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/90/2022

Mr.Shyam - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, DTDC Courier Center and another - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. A. Vinoth Raj

15 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed :11.01.2022

Date of Reservation      : 30.08.2022

Date of Order               : 15.09.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 90/2022

THURSDAY, THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Mr.Shyam,

S/o. N.M. John,

Flat 2C, Indraprastha,

1^st Cross, T.T.K Road,

Alwarpet,

Chennai - 600 018.                                                        ... Complainant                

 

..Vs..

 

1.The Manger,

   DTDC Courier Center,

   No.136, No.B14,

   Thiru.vi.ka Industrial Estate,

   Guindy,

   Chennai – 600042.

 

2.The Manager,

   DTDC Courier Center,

   No.269 Lahari Towers,

   1^st Main Albert Victor Road,

   Chamrajpet,

   Bangalore-560018.                                                   ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. A. Vinothraj

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : Exparte

 

On perusal of records and on endorsement made by the Complainant to treat the Written Arguments as oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

 

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan., B.Sc., MBA.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the 1^st Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the costs of the Tab along with interest @18% and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages for the mental agony and loss caused to the Complainant.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant states that he booked a consignment at Vadapalani branch of the 1^st Opposite Party on 25.08.2021 to deliver a Dell Tablet to his brother-in-law's family in Bangalore which was packed in a leather pouch, a suitable metal box, with foam and bubble packing and clearly marked "Fragile HWC". Since the item booked is very fragile and easily breakable, at the insistence of the 1^st Opposite Party the Complainant also paid Rs. 138/- towards insurance apart from the consignment charges of Rs.160/-. But the 1^st Opposite Party after receiving the additional insurance amount, no insurance cover details were provided. On 27.08.2021, Complainant checked with consignee at Bengaluru and it was confirmed that the same had not been delivered, but on 28.08.2021 when the status of the consignment was tracked, it showed that the consignment was already delivered on 27.08.2021. Finding it inappropriate, the Complainant immediately mailed the above discrepancy to the Opposite Parties along with the screenshot of the same. The Complainant also registered a Complaint with the call centre of the Opposite Party who promised to revert in 24 hours. Meanwhile, the consignee who is the Complainant's brother-in-law, received a call on 28.08.2021 from the delivery boy informing that he was on the way to deliver the item based on which he awaited. But strangely, the consignment was left on the compound wall without any information. When the consignee opened the consignment at about 8 p.m to his shock, the item was found in a totally damaged condition. Having been informed by the consignee to the Complainant the same has been communicated to the Opposite Parties and also shared the images of the damaged article on 30.8.2021 at 11.42 Hrs.

However, the Opposite Parties have not chosen to respond to the communication. Moreover, as per the communication of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant came to know that their employee forged the receipt as if the consignee had acknowledged the receipt of the consignment. It is nothing but a criminal offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The Opposite Parties insensitive reaction to the Complaint of forgery indicates that they are indulging in such criminal activities routinely. The Complainant indicates that the consignment was opened by persons of the Opposite Parties and it got damaged due to their misuse. It happened because of the negligence and lethargic attitude of the Opposite Parties made the Tab in unrepairable condition. Since the Opposite Parties are not responding the Complainant made a criminal Complaint before the concerned authorities. However, the Police authorities, who received the Complaint, had not chosen to conduct any inquiry. In the above circumstances the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 15.09.2021 calling upon the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/  towards the costs of the Tab and mental agony suffered by the Complainant. Moreover the notice sent to the 1st Opposite Party was returned with the endorsement "refused". The 2nd Opposite Party, who received the legal notice, has not chosen to make any reply till date. The attitude of the Opposite Parties made it clear that they had no regard for their illegal act by simply ignoring the complaint. Hence the Complaint.

3.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-5  were marked. 4.    In spite of sufficient notice served on the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties failed to appear before this commission and they have been called absent and set Ex-parte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:

Upon perusal of Ex.A-1, it is evident that on 25.08.2021 the Complainant booked a consignment at Vadapalani branch of the 1st Opposite Party to deliver a Dell Tablet to his brother-in-law's family in Bangalore by paying Rs.160/- as consignment charges ad Rs.138/- towards Insurance for the consignment. But no Insurance coverage related documents were enclosed. On 28.08.2021 when the Complainant checked the status of the consignment online it showed that the consignment was already delivered on 27.08.20121 as per Ex.A-2. But the Complainant assert that the consignee hasn't received the consignment on 27.08.2021. Instead received a call on 28.08.2021 from the Opposite Party delivery boy informing that he was on the way to deliver the consignment , after awaiting for the same strangely without any intimation the consignment was left on the compound wall of the consignee residence followed by that the Complainant allege that when the consignment is opened the item was found in a totally damaged condition and the same has been communicated to the Opposite Parties with images of the damaged article on 30.08.2021. Since there is no response from the Opposite Parties the Complainant states that he launched a complaint with the Police authorities but necessary investigations were not conducted by the Police. Hence the Complainant filed the complaint in the Consumer Redressal Commission. Upon a careful reading of the Complainants  accusations there is no valid proof enclosed in any of the grievances made in the complaint. No valid images confirming the damage of the delivered Tab to the consignee. Accordingly there is no evidence of mail sent to the Opposite Parties as stated in the Complainants averment when the consignment was not delivered on 28.08.2021 to substantiate the claims of the Complainant. Even there is no affirmation that the Complainant approached the Police authorities to address the issue when there is an indulged forgery and criminal activity noted during the course of action in delivering the consignment. Moreover the Complainant alleges that the images of the damaged consignment has been shared to the Opposite Parties on 30.08.2021. But the Complainant failed in producing any of the required documents confirming the representations made to address the issue with the Opposite Parties. Hence the aforementioned allegations and complaint made by the Complainant cannot be considered by relying upon the documents provided confirming the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is answered. 

Point No.2:

As discussed and decided point no.1 as against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief claimed in the Complaint and/or for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 15^th of September 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	25.08.2021	Copy of Receipt issue by the 1st  Opposite Party
Ex.A2	27.08.2021	Copy of Status shown in the website of the opposite parties
Ex.A3	15.09.2021	Copy of Legal Notice issued by the Complainant
Ex.A4	-	Copy of Cover returned by the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A5	-	Copy of Acknowledgement from the 2nd  opposite party

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT