Complaint filed on: 21-06-2014
Disposed on: 26-07-2016
BEFORE THE BENGALURU III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027
CC.No.1118/2014
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF JULY 2016
PRESENT
SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT
SMT.L.MAMATHA, MEMBER
Complainant: -
Sauranshu Purkayastha,
No.2/2A, Flat 101, 1st Floor,
RMV Apartments, (Behind Lord Hanuman Statue), OPP.Kashi Ishwara Swami Temple, Agara Junction, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore-560102
V/s
Opposite parties:-
The Managing Director, DTDC, DTDC House, No.3,
Victoria Road,
Bangalore-560047
ORDER
SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant on 21.06.2014 against the Opposite Party, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, prays to direct the OP to apologize for the inconvenience caused to complainant and to refund the sum of Rs.5,265.00 as damages caused to consigned goods along with the cost of this litigation and also compensation of Rs.75,000.00 towards mental agony.
2. In the complaint, the complainant alleged that he booked the consignment containing household items for delivery from Noida to Bangalore through the OP on 03.01.2014. Complainants courier receipt number was D16073629, he made a payment of Ra.13,600.00 including the premium and insurance charges to the OP. At the time of booking the representative, the OP gave the assurance to the company for the delivery of the goods by 08.01.2014, but the same was not delivered within assured period. Complainant received the goods with a delay of time and in damaged condition. Complainant has paid the OP for insuring the goods during transport, but the OP did not insured the goods even after accepting insurance premium amount. Complainant immediately filed the complaint with an executive of the OP which was not taken seriously. Complainant wait for the long period to receive positive response from the OP, but the same was not received. Complainant send the letter dated 24.02.2014 to the Managing Director with the intention to resolve the matter amicably, but did not receive any positive response from the OP, hence the complaint.
3. In response to the notice OP put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version, in their version he pleaded that complaint is false frivolous and is not maintainable either in law or in facts. It is during complainant booked their consignment with the office of OP on 03.01.2014 wide consignment bearing number D16073629 to deliver the consignment at Bangalore. Complainant has given in declaration to the fact of the value of the consignment along with the pro-forma invoice at the time of entrusting the consignment. Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.13,600.00 in cash only towards the transhipment charges denied as false. Insurance charges paid towards the consignment is true. At the time of entrusting the consignment to the representative of the OP gave the assurance to the complainant for the delivery of goods on 08.01.2014 is false. OP has not given any assurance to its customers. Particularly the date reaching consignment to the consignee due to behind control of OP in delivering consignment to the consignee in transport. Complainant received the goods with delay of time in damaged condition is denied false. Because the complainant has not produced any proof alongwith the survey report as to the esteemed damage inspected during the damage caused to the consignment. It is true complaint as insurance gives during the transport as per the carrier rules, but the complainant and consignee failed to bring notice to the courier company at the time of contract about the special consequences of breach of damage. The claimant claiming damages from the courier company. The alleged loss of consignment due to damage during the transits when not arise at all. As the complainant had not properly packed the consignment to avoid the damages caused to it during transit. He had not risk coverage policy by paying 2% of surcharge on declaring value. Since there is no negligence on the part of the OP, OP should not have been held liable for making payment of Rs.75,000.00 as compensation for mental agony and cost of the damaged consignment along with other charges as claimed in the complaint. Hence OP prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of the case of the complainant Sauranshu Purkayastha filed his affidavit and produced annexure 1 to 6 and closed his evidence on behalf of the OP S.Sujith a senior manager of the OP filed his affidavit.
5. We heard arguments of the both the parties, now the points arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant establish there is
deficiency of service by the OP ?
6. Our findings on the above points are:-
1. Point No.1: Affirmative
2. Point No.2: Accordingly as per the final order
REASONS
7. As looking in to the averments of the complainant and also version filed by the OP it is not in dispute that complainant booked a consignment with OP on 03.01.2014 vide consignment bearing number D16073629 by paying a sum of Rs.13,600.00 to deliver the household items of complainant from Noida to Bangalore. Further to substantiate this fact, complainant in his affidavit reiterated the same and also filed copy of the consignment. By looking in to this document it reveals that the senders name mentioned as Sauranshu Purkayastha for transmission of household articles from Noida to Bangalore and the value of the goods 2,00,000.00. This evidence of the complainant remains unchallenged and to discard this version of the complainant there is no rebuttal evidence. Thereby it is proper to accept the contention of the complainant that complainant booked the consignment containing household items for delivery from Noida to Bangalore on 03.01.2014 by paying a sum of Rs.13,600.00 in a bearing consignment number D16073629.
8. It is further case of the complainant that the representative of the OP gave assurance to the complainant for the delivery of the goods by 08.01.2014, the same was not delivered within the assured period. Complainant received the goods with delay of time and in damaged condition. On the other hand the OP denied this fact so it is burden of the complainant to establish the same in order to prove the alleged contention. Complainant in his affidavit reiterated the same and also produced the complaint about the damages to the goods during the transport. By looking in to this documents it clears that complainant send his consignment wide consignment number D16073629 from Noida to Bangalore on 03.01.2014. He also insured the goods for a sum of Rs.2,00,000.00 and the said goods was booked for transport for paying a sum of Rs.13,600.00. The consignment booked by the complainant when arrived at a Bangalore address the goods in a damaged condition. This evidence of the complainant remains unchallenged, further complainant also produced the notice send by the complainant to the OP on 24.02.2014. In the notice complainants claiming the damage for a sum of Rs.25,000.00 and other damages. This evidence of complainant remains unchallenged, thereby it is proper to accept the contention of the complainant that the consignment booked by the complainant with OP when it was deliver the goods was damaged, in particularly for the A.T.Spain, thereby the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.5265.00. In support of this, complainant also produced the purchasing bill of A.T.Spain. This evidence of the complainant unchallenged there it is proper to accept the contention of the complainant with the goods booked by the complainant for transporting from Noida to Bangalore were damaged, thereby the complainant sustained loss.
9. The complainant after coming to know about the damages caused to the consignment booked by the complainant with OP, he requested to the OP to resolve the matter amicably. Inspite of his best effort, the OP fails to resolve the matter. In order to substantiate this complaint in his affidavit reiterated the same and also produced the notice dated 24.02.2014, thereby it clearly goes to prove that due to the negligence of the OP, the consignment booked by the complainant were damaged wide transporting from Noida to Bangalore. This amount of deficiency serves by the OP.
10. In the complaint, the complainant claims a compensation of a sum of Rs.25,000.00 for his stress and mental agony. But it is not proper to award such a huge amount no doubt as a result of deficiency serves of the OP in particularly causing damages, a damage to the A.T.Spain which was recently purchased by the complainant. Complainant after receiving the goods in damaged condition and delay in delivering goods as promised by OP, complainant requested the OP to settle the matter amicably by sending notice, but OP turned down the request of the complainant, thereby it cause mental agony to the complainant. For that, complainant is entitle for compensation. In our view it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.10,000.00 for the mental agony.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed holding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.5,265.00 damages caused to the goods along with a sum of Rs.6,000.00 cost of the insurance. The Opposite Party also liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000.00 as compensation for causing mental agony. The complainant is entitled for sum of Rs.2,000.00 towards cost of this litigation. The Opposite Party is directed to pay aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of this order. Failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at 15% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of this realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 26th day of July 2016).
MEMBER PRESIDENT
-:ANNEXURES:-
1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:
Sauranshu Purkayastha, who being the complainant
was examined.
2. Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:-
1. Copy of the Consignment notes:
1) Consignment No.D16073629 dated 03.01.2014
2) Consignment No.D16073617 dated 03.01.2014
- Copy of Mail complaint with executives of the OP, Regarding payment details on 14.01.2014
- Photocopy of the damaged product
- Copy of mail dated 15.01.2014, Regarding Complaint filed with executives of the OP
- Letter to the Managing Director-DTDC, dated 24.02.2014
- Courier Receipt dated 26.02.2014
- Purchase bill, Invoice No.0037184 dated 17.12.2009
3. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party complainant by way of affidavit:
S.Sujith a senior manager, who being the Opposite
Party was examined.
4. Documents produced on behalf of the OP:-
NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT
