Date of Filing: 22.07.2019
Date of Order: 19.07.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)
HON’BLE Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Monday the 19th day, of July 2021
C.C.No. 340/2019
Between
Ch. Venkat Rao, S/o Late Ch. Achaiah,
Aged about 65 years, Occ: Retd Employee,
R/o: Plot No. 16, Road No. 3, New Gayathri Nagar,
Jillelguda, Balapur Mandal,
R.R.Dist – 500091 Ph.No. 9959222820
….Complainant
And
1. The Authorized signatory
DTDC Express Ltd,
Malakpet, Srikrupa Market,
Mahaboob Mansion,
Hyderabad – 500036.
2. The Authorized signatory
DTDC Express Ltd,
Office No.1-11-93/6, Shyamala Building,
Behind Shivam Petrol pump, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500016
….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant :Party-In-Person
Counsel for the Opposite parties No.1&2 : Mr.S.Pramod Kumar
O R D E R
(By Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER on behalf of the bench)
1. The above complainant has been filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 alleging deficiency in service and adoption of Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the Opposite Parties as such, praying the District Forum to direct the opposite parties to refund the costs of valuable things of Rs.45,000/- along with interest @24 % p.a. from the date 11.06.2019, on which date items were stated to have been missed, till realization, to the complainant, Rs.2,00,,000/- compensation for damages, pain, suffering and mental agony etc., and Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the litigation and such other reliefs as it deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of the complainant are that :
The complainant states that his friend sent, on 04.06.2019, a courrier box /consignment consisting of valuable things such as Sarees, Imition ornaments, Bag, photo frames, wireless headphones and Hand Bag, all worth of Rs.45,000/- through OP_.2 from Pune vide track no. D51931434 to the complainant. When the complainant checked the track report of said courrier online, he was shocked to know the reason for not delivering the said courrier, on the ground of non-availability of the Receiver. On contacting the personnel concerned, it was stated that he was informed that the above courrier would be delivered to him. On 11.06.2019, when he received the said courrier, he states that he was shocked to know the condition of the consignment, as the weight of the above courrier was 4.7 kgs instead of 7 kgs. By opening it and took the photos of the same and when informed its condition to his daughter it was confirmed that some items were missed. When the same was brought to the notice of the Courrier persons by way of phone calls and mails, it is stated that there was no response and sometimes evasive replies were given. As such, the complainant states that he filed the above complaint attributing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops praying the Forum to grant reliefs as stated supra.
3. The Ops got filed a Written Version denying the allegations made in the complaint, also states that the damages claimed by the complainant are speculative and the same cannot be granted by the Consumer Forum as it does not have power to grant under Consumer Laws. They state that they did not know the contents of the courrier and the complainant is stated to be put to proof of missing items worth of Rs.45,000/-. When they tried to deliver the same on 10.6.2019 , the complainant was not available and again on the next day i.e. on 11.6.2019, the said consignment was delivered to the receiver, whose name was stated to be Mr.Venkat Rao, by obtaining his signature and mobile no-9959222850 and at that time no objection was stated to be raised. They state that items, if any, were missed, objection by the receiver would have been raised. It is stated that the person who received the consignment might have opened the box and some things were taken. When the complainant saw it, he lodged a complainant with them about the same. The consignment was stated to be delivered in good condition. As to the weight of the consignment, it is stated that the same consignment with the same weight was delivered in good condition. At the time of booking of the consignment, the person who booked the same was explained as to the payment of risk coverage, but which was stated to be not chosen. Details and value of items were not stated to be declared at the time of booking of the consignment. In the absence of declaration of contents of the consignment and non-payment of risk charges for the same and not mentioning the urgency of the same, not filling the value of the declared items in the column specifically stated to be provided in the specified column, the complainant has no right to claim for anything. Their liability would be limited to Rs.100/- only in any case of wrong on their party. Thus, stating that under the stated circumstances, no commission of deficiency in service and no adoption of unfair trade practice on their part as such prayed the District Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. During the course of enquiry, The complainant has filed his Affidavit of Evidence supported by Ex.A.1 to A.6. The Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties supported by documentary evidence , vide Ex.B.1 to B.10. Both have filed their written arguments and submitted their oral arguments in support of their contentions.
5. Heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties as well. Perused the material on record. For arrival of just and proper conclusion, determination of the following are essential:
- 1 Whether the complainant could prove deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops ?
- 2 Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as prayed for ? If so, to what extent ?
5.1. From the above discussion, it is clear that no document filed by the complainant does show the declaration of items while booking the consignment and opting for risk coverage. When items were not declared and risk was not chosen while booking liability cannot be fastened to the Opposite parties for stated missing of valuable items in the consignment when received. As such we come to the conclusion that the complainant failed to prove his pleadings. There is no liability on Opposite Parties and complainant is not entitled to anything.
5.2 & 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without any costs.
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this the 19th day of July, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1 – Copy of Receipt of booking dt. 04.06.2019.
Ex.A2 – Copy of tracking record..
Ex.A3 – Copy of photos of damaged box.
Ex.A4 – Copy of received items photos
Ex.A5 – Copy of DTDC complaint ticket No. 14679724.
Ex.A6 – Copy of all sent mails from 11.06.2019 to 9.07.2019.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite party :
Ex.B1 - Copy of DTDC Consignment note dt.04.06.2019.
Ex.B2 - Copy of tracking sheet
Ex.B3 - Copy of DTDC delivery run sheet
Ex.B4 - Copy of plaint mode consignment with terms and conditions
MEMBER PRESIDENT
