DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA
AT: KASTURI NAGAR, Ist. LANE, L.I.C.OFFICE BACK PO/DIST: RAYAGADA , STATE: ODISHA, PIN NO.765001, PHONE/FAX NO.06856-223025.
....
C.C. Case No..38/ 2014.
Dated. 19th Sept, 2014.
P R E S E N T .
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, LL.B, President.
Smt. Ch. Nirmala Kumari Raju, LLB, Member
Dharmendra Mishra, C/o Balaram Choudhury, At: Bank Colony, Po: Rayagada,Pin:765001. ……Complainant
Vrs.
1. D.T.D.C. Courier & Cargo Ltd., Mahanadi Vihar, Nayabazar, Cuttack- 753004.
2. D.T.D.C. Courier & Cargo Ltd., Regd. Office No.3,Victoria road,Bengalure-560047. ……...Opp.Parties
Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: In Person
For O.P No.1: Set Exparte
For the O.P No.2: Sri N.K. Patra & Associate Advocates.
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the complaint in brief is that, the complainant has sent a mobile phone worth of Rs.15,700/- through the O.P. No.1 on dt.13.01.2014 vide Consignment No.D.16213317 but the said consignment was not delivered to the consignee who was at Kerala. The complainant again and again contacted with all O.Ps but no satisfactory answer was received from any corner . When the complainant asking always they are saying that the matter is under investigation . Due to the negligence of the O.ps the complainant has suffered a lot and also faced a lot of mental agony. The said parcel was neither delivered to the consignee nor it was returned to the complainant and hence prayed payment of Rs.15,700/- which is the cost of the mobile set and also prayed for compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and litigation charges . Hence, this case.
2. After receipt of notice the Opp.PartyNo.2 appeared through his advocate Sri N.K.Patra & Associates and files written version denying the allegations of the complainant. The O.P. No. 1 has not appeared as such they was set exparte.
3. It is submitted by the Opp.Party No.2 that the complainant has not mentioned or declared in the shipper copy that he is sending a mobile set and also not mentioned the amount of the said mobile . There is no proof that the petitioner had sent the mobile set in the consignment and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs in favour of the Opp.Parties.
4. We perused the complaint petition and documents filed by the parties and also heard argument from both the parties. It is admitted fact that the parcel in question was not delivered to the consignee. The O.P No.2 has admitted in its version that the Opp.Party No.1 is responsible for all these faults of the petitioner. It is contended by the O.P 2 that the complainant has not mentioned or declared that he is sending a mobile in the shipper copy and also not mentioned the amount of the said mobile and there is no proof that the petitioner had sent the mobile in the consignment and as such the O.ps are not liable to refund any amount or pay any compensation to the complainant.
5. In our view this contention is of no substance as the opp.party was required to deliver the consignment in perfect condition unless and until it was damaged due to reasons for which the opp.party was not responsible i.e an act of God or some such mishap. In order to insure the safe delivery of the consignment the opp.party could have taken extra caution either by insuring goods even by charging extra amount from the consigner and he should have asked the complainant to mention the details of the consignment along with its cost, so that in case of any mishap or damage or theft the consigner could be compensated. But in no way it can escape from their liability of compensating consumer as to the loss or injury suffered by the complainant due to its negligence.
6. Service of transport as contemplated under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection act has to be performed in perfect manner as envisaged by Section 2(1)(g) of the Act.
Section 2(1)(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that if the loss is due to the negligence of the Courier service , the courier has no other option than to indemnify the same. Hence, the complaint is allowed in part and the matter is dispose of with the following directions.
ORDER
The petition of the complainant is allowed on contest against all the O.ps. They are jointly and severally liable to pay towards the loss and damages which caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence, the O.Ps are ordered to pay the cost of mobile set i.e Rs.15,700/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- which includes cost of litigation and mental agony. The mater is disposed with the direction to the Opposite Parties to comply the above order within four weeks of receipt of this ,failing which they are liable to pay penal interest @ 12% p.a. on the above awarded amount till its realization.
Pronounced in open forum today on this 19 h day of September,2014 under the seal and signature of this forum.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements , be forwarded to the parties free of charge.
Member President
Documents relied upon:
By the complainant:
- Xerox copy of Consignee No.D16213317 dt.13.01.14.
- Xerox copy of payment of mobile set .
By the Opp.Party: Nil
President
