Telangana

Khammam

CC/43/2017

K.Raghunadha Rao , Burhanpuram Khammam - Complainant(s)

Versus

D T D C Express Ltd, Khammam Bypass, DRDA Office Road Khammam, Represented by its Authorized Signato - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

02 May 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM

 

Dated this, the 2^nd day of May, 2018.

 

          CORAM:     1. Sri. P. Madhav Raja, _{B.Sc., M.Li.Sc., LL.M.,}– President

2. Sri. R. Kiran Kumar_{, B.Sc., LL.M.} – Member

     

C.C. No. 43/2017

Between:

 

K. Raghunadha Rao, S/o.Ranga Rao,

Age: 72 years, H.No.10-6-26,

Burhanpuram,

Khammam.                                                           …Complainant

And

         

1. D.T.D.C. Express ltd., Khammam – 8,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

Bypass, DRDA Office Road,

Khammam.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

DTDC Express Ltd.,

Station Road,

Khammam.

 

3. M/s. DTDC Express Ltd.,

Rep. by its Director,

DTDC House, Regd. Office No.3,

Victoria Road,

Bangalore – 560 047

                                                                         …Opposite parties

 

        This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing; complainant appeared           In person; in the presence of Sri. K.L.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2; and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3 called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

 

 

O R D E R

(Per Sri. R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

 

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

2.       The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant intended to send a cover to Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Vice President, Marketing on 13-10-2017, he went to DTDC Express Services Ltd., DRDA Office Road, Khammam and consigned the same to deliver to the consignee, who is working at Max Cure Hospital, as Vice President, Marketing, Madhapur, Hyderabad vide POD No.H75457612, dt:13-10-2017.  The complainant further submitted that on 16-10-2017 he enquired about the consignment about the receipt of consignment and to his surprise, it was not delivered till               16-10-2017.  The Courier service assuring next day delivery if not 3^rd day.  The complainant further submitted that whereas, the consignment was not delivered even after 10 days, he sent a mail to DTDC Customer Support on 17-10-2017, on that they gave a case No.08879096 and suggested him to quote the number for further query on the consignment, and further the complainant send mails about delivery of consignment.  Still the consignment is not delivered to the consignee, which comes under the negligence and deficiency of services, as such the complainant filed this complaint.

 

3.       On behalf of the complainant, the complainant filed the following documents and the same were marked as Exs.A.1 and A.2. 

Ex.A.1         :- Courier receipt.

Ex.A.2:- Copies of Mails sent to the Opposite Parties, dt.17th ,18th ,20^th  

             and 21^st October, 2017.

 

4.       On receipt of notice the Opposite Party No.2 appeared through their counsel and filed Counter.  In their counter, they denied the allegations made by the complainant against them. The Opposite Party No.2 submitted that the consignment was booked on 13-10-2017 and the said consignment was delivered as per the informatives of Madhapur Hytech City Branch Office, but we did not receive the said delivery note from the said branch, as such Opposite Party No.2 could not issue delivery report to the complainant.  The Opposite Party No.2 further submitted that the Courier conditions the shipment was  not disclosed at the time of booking by the complainant and the value of the consignment was not declared by the complainant and also the risk surcharge was not paid by the complainant.  And also submitted that the complainant might have lodged a written complaint to the Customer Services Department for non delivery of shipment and any letters were sent to the Customer Service Department, as such the complaint is not maintainable either in Law or on facts.  Also submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 is ready to send the delivery receipt to the complainant after receiving from Madhapur Branch, Hyderabad, as such prayed to dismiss the complaint.    

5.      On behalf of Opposite Party No.2 no documents filed. 

6.      In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
2. To what relief?

Point No.1:

          In this case the complainant intended to send a cover to Mr. K. Ranga Rao, Vice President, Marketing on 13-10-2017, he approached the DTDC Express Services Ltd., DRDA Office Road, Khammam and consigned the same to deliver to the consignee.  According to the complainant that on 16-10-2017 he enquired about the consignment and the same was not delivered to the consignee till 16-10-2017.  As the consignment was not delivered even after 10 days, he sent a mail to DTDC customer support on 17-10-2017, on that they gave a case No.08879096 and suggested him to quote the number for further query on the consignment, and further the complainant send mails about delivery of consignment.  But the opposite parties failed to take steps for trace out the consignment, which is comes under the negligence and deficiency of services, as such the complainant approached this Forum for redressal. 

 

          From the documents available on record, we observe that the complainant sent a consignment through opposite party courier service, but the same was not received by the consignee and also the opposite parties failed to give proper reply and also through customer support they registered a case vide No.08879096 and also the Opposite Party No.2, in their counter submitted that they are ready to send the delivery receipt to the complainant after receiving from Madhapur Branch, Hyderabad.  Even after lapse of reasonable time they failed to produce the same. 

 

          From the above it is crystal clear that the opposite parties having knowledge about the damage and sufferance of the complainant, which is nothing but deficiency of service.  As the opposite parties failed to take proper steps in delivering the consignment of the complainant. For the above, the opposite parties is fastened with liability fixing a reasonable amount towards sufferance and mental agony.            Having regard to the facts and circumstances, it is just and proper to assess the loss and sufferance incurred by the complainant as Rs.10,000/-.  Hence, this point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant. 

 

Point No.2

 

7.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-, within one month from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at 9% P.A. from the date of order till the date of actual payment.  

 

            Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, on this the 2^nd day of May,2018.

                                                                                       

 

                                               

                   Member             President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

 

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties  

       None                                                                          None

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

 

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties

   

Ex.A1:-	Courier receipt.		Nil -
Ex.A2:-	Copies of Mails sent to the opposite parties, on 17th, 18th, 20th and 21st October, 2017.

 

 

 

 

                   Member             President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.