DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 359 of 2022

 

Smt. Aparna Bhowmik,

W/O- Sri Samir Chakraborty,

Near Circuit House, 

P.O. Abhoynagar, Agartala, 

District- West Tripura- 799005. .............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Branch Manager,

DTDC Express Ltd.,

Pranab Bhavan, 

Near Post Office Chowmuhani,

Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

District- West Tripura- 799001.

 

DTDC Express Ltd.,

Registered Office: No.3, Victoria Road,

Benguluru- 560047. ..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

__________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Amritlal Saha,

  Sri Kajal Nandi,

  Sri Sunil Bhaumik, 

    Learned Advocate. 

 

For the Opposite Parties : Sri Koushik Pal,

  Sri Bimal Deb,

  Learned Advocates.

 

 

 

ORDER  DELIVERED  ON:   19.04.2023.

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. This complaint is filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant Smt.Aparna Bhowmik of Abhoynagar, Agartala ( in short 'the complainant') against the O.Ps namely Branch Manager, DTDC Express Ltd., Agartala, West Tripura(in short 'O.P. No.1') and DTDC Express Ltd., Victoria Road, Benguluru(in short O.P. No.2') alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

1.2 The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant booked a packet containing different cloths items etc. at the office of the O.P. No.1, Agartala for transporting the same to MS Saheli Chakraborty, at Cosmic Womens PG, opposite Sasya Elipe, behind Paradise Biriyani, Indiranagar, Gachhi Bowli, Hyderabad- 500032 on 06.04.2022. 

1.3 She paid Rs.470/- for carrying service against the consignment no. K55172011 dated 06.04.2022.  

1.4 Assurance was given by the O.P. No.1 that the consignment shall reach to the destination within 7 days. But the consignment did not reach to the destination within a week. Complainant contacted with the O.P. No.1 on 21.04.2022, 04.05.2022 and on several other dates but without any fruitful result. 

1.5 From the side of the recipient of the consignment i.e., the daughter of the complainant at Hyderabad also contacted the O.P. No.2  on 19.04.2022, 24.04.2022, 25.04.2022, 27.04.2022 & on 30.04.2022 and all occasion they assured delivery of the consignment very soon.

1.6 After elapse of more than one month the complainant on 12.05.2022 served Legal Notice upon the O.P. No.1 & 2. But the O.P. did not reply to the notice nor did they deliver the consignment item till today. 

1.7 Hence, the complainant filed this case praying for getting relief claiming Rs. 66,100/-  as compensation and litigation cost and the price of the items/ consignment. 

 

2. O.P. contested the case by filing their written version. The main contention raised by the O.Ps as per para 7 and 8 of the written objection is that the consignment was booked with no risk coverage as such the O.Ps are not liable to pay any compensation and also has stated in para-9 that as per shipment summary the value of the consignment was 10 paisa only and also that all claims had to be raised within 30 days from the date of tendering shipment.

3. The complainant filed evidence on affidavit but the O.Ps failed to file evidence inspite of repeated chance as such vide order dated 24.02.2023 evidence of the O.Ps was closed. Hence, the O.Ps failed to substantiate their version of written objection. 

4. During argument Learned Counsel of he complainant argued his case on the basis of the documents submitted. 

4.1 Per contra Learned Counsel of the O.P. submitted that the case is not maintainable as no notice was served U/S 9 & 10 of the Carriers Act. However, the limit of liability is to the extent of Rs.500/- as per the liability clause.

 

5. On the basis of evidence on record and pleading the following points are taken up for   discussion and decision:-

(i) Whether without notice U/S  9 & 10 of the Carriers Act the present complaint is maintainable?

(ii) Whether the limit of liability is to the extent of Rs.500/- or the value of the consignment was 10 paisa ?

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-

6. All the points are taken up together for convenience.

6.1 We consider the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs. Associated Roadways in 2004 Vol. 11 SCC 545. The complaint was filed for recovery of Rs.21,04,835.83 paisa under the Consumer Protection Act seeking compensation  for the loss suffered by the complainant as the respondent effected delivery of goods entrusted to it without obtaining the original lorry receipts from the consignee. As such for that purpose Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to decide that without notice U/s 9 & 10 of the Carriers Act no case is maintainable. 

6.2 In the present case, the O.P. DTDC did not deliver the consignment at all rather submitted a receipt that one consignment was delivered at Bengaluru on 12.09.2022 which is not relevant in this case because the consignment was supposed to deliver at Hyderabad.

6.3 The receipt issued by the employee of DTDC shows that Rs.370/- was charges but all the columns i.e., actual weight, chargeable weight, risk surcharge, value added service charges were not filled up at all even signature of the complainant was also not obtained. Description of the contents was also not mentioned. Now, the O.Ps have taken the stand that value of the consignment was 10 paisa although as per the complaint the complainant booked cloths for Rs.6100/-. Therefore, employees of the O.Ps either intentionally or for any other  reason not known to the complainant are guilty of unfair trade practice. For which the O.Ps are vicariously responsible. As such with all humility we understood that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arvind Mills Ltd. Vs.  Associated Roadways(Supra) is not relevant in this case. Rather the judgment passed by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Revision Petition No. 886 of 2015 in Asish Verma Vs. DTDC Courier & Cargo  Ltd. & 4 others is relevant wherein Hon'ble National Commission was pleased to hold the DTDC responsible for unfair trade practice in similar circumstance.

7. All the points are decided accordingly in favour of the complainant.

8. In the result it is decided that the O.Ps  jointly and severally shall pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for committing unfair trade practice and shall also return Rs.6,100/- to the complainant. Both these amounts shall be paid with interest @ 7.5% P.A. from the date of booking the consignment i.e., from 06.04.2022 till the date of actual payment unless paid within 30 days from today.

 

 

9. The case stands disposed off. Supply a copy of this Final Order free of cost to the complainant and the Opposite parties.

 

Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.