BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna  Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

Wednesday  the 13^th day of October , 2010

C.C.No 131/09

Between:

Shaik Mohammed Ismail, S/o. Shaik Abdul Rasool,

R/o. H.No.4-4, Peddapeerla Street, Atmakur-518422, Kurnool district.                                                …..Complainant

-Vs-                

1. Mr. S.Malik,  S/o. V.S. Khaleel,                                                             

   Agent DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited, (B.O), D.No.17-105, Reshma Fancy Stores, Near Mecca Masjid, K.G.Road, Atmakur-518422, Kurnool District.                         

2. Regional Manager, DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited,

    D.No.1-10-1 & 1-10-1/4, Opp. Airport Lane, Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500 016.

3. The Managing Director, DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited,

   Regd. Office, DTDC HOUSE, No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-560 047, Karnataka State.                                      …Opposite PartieS

        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.G.Chalapathi Rao, Advocate, for complainant, and opposite party No.1 is called absent set ex-parte and Sri.R.Murali Krishna, Advocate for opposite parties 2 and 3 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

C.C. No. 131/09

1. This complaint is filed under section 11 & 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs

1.   to pay the damages  of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant  

          for loss and mental agony

1. to award costs of the complaint and
2. to such other relief and reliefs as the Hon’ble Forum  deems

           fit and  proper in the circumstances of the case.

1. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- OP.No.3 is a Courier & Cargo  services with its registered office at Bangalore. OP.No.2 is a Regional office at Hyderabad in A.P. OP.No.1 is an agent at Atmakur, Kurnool District of OPs 2 and 3. The complainant is working as a Computer Programmer in A1-Habeeb College of Engineering & Technology at Chevella in Ranga Reddy District since 2002. In the year 2004 the complainant joined in B.Tech a four year course of school continuing and Distance Education of JNTU, Hyderabad. Due to inconvenience he could not take the examinations in 3 papers. He intended to appear for the examination in the said 3 papers in the supplementary stream schedule to be held in the month of June, 2009 and the examinations for the said 3 papers were scheduled for 2^nd, 5^th , 8^th of June, 2009. On 03-04-2009 the complainant purchased a D.D for Rs.450/- towards the examination fees and on 13-04-2009 he sent it along with application form through OP.No.1 under the consignment No. T32355573 to the Director SCDE, Administrative Building, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. He has to receive the Hall –Ticket on the date of examination i.,e 02-06-2009 in the college campus, an hour before the commencement of the examinations. OP.No.1 gave copy of the courier consignment note in acknowledgement of booking the consignment of the complainant. After sending the application the complainant made preparation for the examinations.

On 02-06-2009 the complainant went to his college at Hyderabad for collecting the Hall-Ticket . He was told by the staff in the college that they have not received any consignment of his application form or the Bank D.D. Hence they did not issue any Hall –Ticket to the complainant. Immediately the complainant went to OP.No.2 and made enquiry about delivery of his consignment bearing No. T32355573. On 02-06-2009 the complainant prepared a written complaint to OP.No.2 about the non delivery of the consignment. Later the Kurnool branch of OP.No.2 informed that the consignment No. T32355573 was delivered to Share Micro Finance Limited, Nacharam, Hyderabad on 16-02-2009. Later on 09-06-2009 the complainant sought for clarification. On 09-06-2009 OP.No.2 addressed a letter to the complainant informing that the consignment booked by him at Atmakur was not traceable , might have lost while in transit and expressed regrets for it. Inview of the non delivery of the consignment the complainant  could not appear for the examinations resulting in the loss of academic year. He lost chance of getting promotion. He was denied an opportunity in joining  in M.Tech Course. The act of OPs in failing the delivery of the consignment tantamounts to rendering deficient service and caused mental agony to the complainant. OP.No.2 negligently gave false information stating that the consignment was delivered on 16-02-2009 to a different address. The complainant got issued a legal notice  to OPs demanding them to pay compensation . OPs 2 and 3 received the legal notices and they failed to respond. Hence the compliant.

3.     OP.No.1 remained set ex-parte . OP.No. 2 and 3 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. The OPs are not aware of the educational qualifications of the complainant. It is bounden duty of the person booking the cover through courier service to disclose the contents at the booking point of the courier service. The complainant who booked the cover did not disclose to that effect. The complainant  is more aware of the terms and conditions  of the courier service . One of the main features relate to giving declaration of value and importance of the contents. At the time of booking the consignment the original receipt will be given to the complainant. Account copy will be retained  with the booking point for the purpose of the accounts. It is not now how the complainant got the account copy in two his hands. The complainant  has not at all booked consignment  with the OP.No.1. The complaint is bad of non filling  of original receipt i.,e shipper copy . As per the records the consignment No. T32355573 was delivered to the Micro Shares at Nacharam , Hyderabad on 16-02-2009 . The same was  informed to the complainant  through OP.No.1. There is no material in the complaint that OP.No.2 or Kukatpally Branch received the package in question. No document was filed to show that the hall ticket will be issued an hour before the commencement of the examination.  There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The compliant is liable to be dismissed.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A14 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of OP.No.2 is filed.

5.     Complainant and Ops 2 and 3 filed written arguments. 

6.     The points that arise for consideration are     

(i)     whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs ?

(ii)    whether the  complainant is entitled damages ? if so to what amount ?.

(iii)    To what relief?

7. Points No.1 & 3 :-       It is the case of the complainant  that on 13-04-2009 he sent  application along with D.D. for Rs.450/- to the Director, SCDE, Hyderabad, under consignment No. 3235573 to appear for  the examinations schedule to be held on 2^nd , 5^th , 8^th of June, 2009 and that the said consignment was not delivered to the addressee by the OPs. The complainant in his sworn affidavit clearly stated that he joined in B.Tech a four year course and that he submitted his declaration form along with D.D through courier. The complainant filed Ex.A1 receipt relating to consignment No. 3235573 dated 13-04-2009. As seen from the Ex.A1 it is very clear that the complainant booked consignment on 13-04-2009 addressed to the Director, JNTU, Hyderabad. The OPs did not file any document to show that the consignment No. 3235573 was delivered to the addressee i.,e., Director, JUTU, Hyderabad. Admittedly on the complaint given by the complainant , OP.No.2 gave delivery run sheet Ex.A4 where in it is mentioned that the consignment was delivered to Shares Micro Finance Limited, Nacharam, Hyderabad on 16-02-2009. Ex.A4 delivery run sheet relates to consignment No. T32074072. It does not relate to the consignment booked by the complainant on 13-04-2009. The consignment No T 32355573 is dated 13-04-2009 . The question of delivery the said consignment on 16-02-2009 did not arrange. Therefore it can be safely concluded  that Ex.A4=B1  does not relate to the  consignment booked in the name of the complainant on            13-04-2009.     

8.     It is the case of the complainant that on 09-06-2009 he sent E-mail to OPs 2 and 3 seeking clarification and that on 09-06-2009 itself OP.No.2 addressed a letter Ex.A6 informing that the consignment booked by the complainant at Atmakur was not traceable and might have lost while in transit. As seen from the Ex.A6 letter addressed by OP.No.2 it is very clear that the consignment dated 13-04-2009 bearing No. 32335573 was not delivered to the addressee.  As already stated the OPs could not place any documentary evidence to show that the consignment No. 32335573 dated 13-04-2009 booked at Atmakur was delivered to the addressee. The non delivery of the consignment to the addressee by the OPs amounts to deficiency of service.

9.     It is the case of the complainant  that he sent the examination application form along with D.D. through consignment dated 13-04-2009 , that due to non delivery of the consignment to the addressee  he could not appear for examinations which were held on 2^nd, 5^th, 8^th of June, 2009. It is not the case of the complainant that at the time of booking the consignment he informed to OP.No.1 about the contents of the consignment. No doubt the complainant booked the cover through OP.No.1 on 13-04-2009. The complainant must have given a declaration of value and contents of the consignment. The OPs are not aware of the contents of the cover booked by the complainant on 13-04-2009. Had the complainant revealed the contents of the consignment at the time of booking the cover, certainly the OPs must have been made liable for the loss sustained by the complainant. As the complainant did not declare the contents of the consignment at the time of booking the OPs can be made liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- . As already stated there is material on record to show that the OPs due to their negligence did not delivery the consignment booked in the name of the complainant. Because of negligence on the part of the OPs the complainant must have suffered mental agony  . It is the OPs who caused mental agony to the complainant by non delivery of the consignment booked by the complainant to the addressee. Therefore I think it is just and proper to direct the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant  for causing mental agony  .

10. Point No.4:  In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the OPs jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for causing mental agony within 3 months from the date of the order along with costs of Rs.500/- .

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 13^th day of October,  2010.

        Sd/-                                                                  Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil            For the opposite parties : Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1        Courier consignment note issued by OP1 to complainant Dt.13-04-09.

Ex.A2.       Counter foil of DD application from Andhra Bank, Masan Tank Branch, Hyderabad, dt.03-04-2009.

Ex.A3.       Photo copy of letter dt.02-06-2009.

Ex.A4.       Photo copy of delivery run sheet of Nacharam Branch of DTDC, dt.16-02-2009.

Ex.A5.       Photo copy of complaint through e-mail to OP’s 2 & 3, dt.09-06-09.

Ex.A6.       Letter of OP2 addressed to complainant, dt.09-06-09.

Ex.A7.       Office copy of Legal notice dt.18-06-09.

Ex.A8.       Two postal acknowledgements of OP2 & 3.

Ex.A9.       Returned postal cover of OP1.

Ex.A10.      Photo copy of schedule of supplementary examinations june-2009 of SCDE, JNTU, Hyderabad, download from internet, dt.04-03-09.

Ex.A11.      Photo copy of PG E-CET-2009 Osmania University, Hyderabad hall ticket of complainant, downloaded from internet.

Ex.A12.      Photo copy of Osmania University, Hyderabad PG E-CET-2009 Rank card of complainant downloaded from internet.

Ex.A13.      Photo copy of medical certificate in respect of an orthopaedically handicapped candidate issued by Chairman, medical district board, G.G.H. Kurnool,

dt.21-02-2004.

Ex.A14.      Service certificate dt.02-08-2010.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: 

Ex.B1.       Photo copies of delivery run sheet, dt.16-02-2009

           Sd/-                                                                           Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on :

Copy was dispatched on   :