Date of Filing:23/03/2017

Date of Order:31/05/2018

BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated: 31^STDAY OF MAY 2018

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B.Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT

SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.455/2017

V/s

ORDER

BY SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT

1.  This is the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as O.P) alleging deficiency in service in not delivering the saree booked from her relative from Surat to Shivamogga and for compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the materials, phone calls , courier charges, for mental torture and for litigation expenses.

2.     The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, she is residing in Bengaluru. One Smt.Aruna Rao her cousin sent a parcel from Surat to the complainant’s Shivamogga address through O.P which is a courier service provider. The consignment No is.A-36448426 dated 26.9.2016 . The said packet consists of a Silk Saree was  sent as gift to the complainant on her wedding anniversary.  The same was not delivered to the complainant even on 30.9.2016. On enquiry, they came to know that it was sent to Davanagere office and the same was enquired with them. They informed that they have not received the same. By tracking the same on 3.10.2016, she came to know that the Bengaluru Hub at St’ John’s Road, Bengaluru had received the said parcel. When contacted them, they gave an evasive reply. Till the date of filing of this Complaint, they did not deliver the parcel.  On further enquiry, she came to know that on 30.9.2016 itself the parcel has reached Bangalore office and they are not liable for any lapses. When again contacted the regional office, they informed her that it may be last in transit. Ultimately she  issued legal notice on 20.7.2017 and till now the parcel has not been delivered which has caused her mental torture, physical strain and financial loss. Hence, prayed to allow the complaint.

3.   Upon the service of notice, O.P.No.1  appeared before the Forum and filed its version admitting the booking of the parcel through its franchisee at Surat on 26.9.2016 destination to Shivamogga. It is the duty of the complainant to declare the value of the consignment of shipment at the time of booking the same and since the complainant has not declared the value, their liability is only limited to Rs.100/-.  It is also alleged that, a duty is caste on the complainant to insure the consignment to protect its interest in the event of loss, pilferage or damage to the consignment.  In this case, the complainant has not insured the consignment.   It has admitted that the said consignment booked from its Surat Franchisee has been misplaced and could not be traced despite of its best effort. Under the circumstances, its liability is only Rs.100/- since the value of the consignment is not declared by the sender and not paying the applicable risk surcharge as careers risk and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.       In order to prove the case, the complainant and O.P have filed their affidavit evidence along with the copies of the documents reiterating the contents of the complaint and version respectively. Heard the arguments of both the parties.

5.      On the basis of the above pleadings and evidence of the complainant and O.P, the following points arise for our consideration:-

                                1)   Whether the complainant has proved

Deficiency  in service on the part of  the O.P ?

2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

the  relief  prayed for in the complaint?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT 1: Affirmative.

POINT 2: Partly in the affirmative.

                As per the final order:

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

7.    On perusal of the complaint, the oral evidence and the documents produced by the complainant and the version of the O.P, it becomes clear that the relative of complainant Smt. Anitha Rao booked a saree with O.P on 26.10.2016 to be delivered to the complainant’s address on 30.10.2016 as a gift to her wedding anniversary. It is admitted by the O.P in its version regarding the booking of the parcel and its non-delivery to the addressee. In view of the admission there is no proof required to prove the fact of deficiency in service. Hence we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINT No.2:-

8.   It is the specific stand of the O.P that, since the person who booked the parcel has not declared the value of the article, which he/she has sent, the liability of O.P is only restricted to Rs.100/- which has been written in the receipt given at the time of booking. It is also its specific stand that since the person who has booked the parcel has not paid any risk charge, it is not bound to pay damages and further asserts that its liability is only Rs.100/-. Receipt of the legal notice is admitted by the O.P.

9.   The complainant has stated that a silk saree has been sent through O.P to be delivered at Shivamogga which has not been done by the O.P. She claims a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the cost of the saree, towards damages for mental and physical stress and strain and the efforts made by her in calling the Bengaluru, Davanagere and Surat offices of O.P and for litigation expenses.

10.   At this juncture it is to be observed here that complainant has not placed even the receipt of the saree which her relative Smt. Anitha Rao purchased and sent through the courier services of the O.P to come to know by this Forum as to what is the exact cost of the lost goods.  At the same time, as pointed out by the O.P, declaration of the value of the goods entrusted to O.P for carrying to Shivamogga has also not been made.  Though the complainant has claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service of O.P in not handing over the parcel in time and even afterwards, has not been substantiated with supporting and convincing documentary evidence. Under the circumstances, we are of the Opinion that since the voucher or receipt is not signed by the person who has handed over the parcel to the O.P to be carried to Shivamogga and since O.P has not produced before Forum the original booking order and also the application form in that respect, we feel that a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the loss of the goods and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the suffering suffered by the complainant and towards litigations expenses if ordered to be paid by the O.P to the complainant would meet the ends of justice. Hence we answer Point No.2 Partly in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed with cost.

2. O.P i.e. M/s DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd., represented by its Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of article and Rs.5,000/- towards suffering and cost of the litigation expenses to the complainant. In case O.P fails to pay the said amount within 30 days from the receipt of the order is directed to pay interest at 12% per annum on the above said amount.

3.  The O.P ishereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.

4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 31^th Day of MAY 2018)

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

*Rak

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

CW-1: Prathima Mohan – Complainant.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Doc.No.1: Copy of Courier Receipt dtd:26.09.2016.

Doc.No.2: Copy of Legal Notice dtd: 24.01.2017.

Doc.No.3: Copy of RPAD Receipts dtd:25.1.2017.

Doc.No.4: Copy of Tracked receipts – 2 Nos.

Doc.No.5: Copy of Refused RPAD letter dtd:28.01.2017.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1:T.S.Rama Murthy, Head Admin(SZ), Senior Manager IR for O.P.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

-Nil-

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT