Kerala

Wayanad

CC/207/2015

Anoop James, S/o. Benny James, Manthottathil House, Pachikaramukku - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.T.D.C. Courier and Cargo, D.T.D.C. House No. 3,Victoria Road, Bangaluru - Opp.Party(s)

04 Sep 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CIVIL STATION ,KALPETTA
WAYANAD-673122
PHONE 04936-202755
 
Complaint Case No. CC/207/2015
 
1. Anoop James, S/o. Benny James, Manthottathil House, Pachikaramukku
Pulpally Post
Wayanad
Kerala
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. D.T.D.C. Courier and Cargo, D.T.D.C. House No. 3,Victoria Road, Bangaluru
Bangaluru
Bangaluru
Karnataka
2. D.T.D.C. Courier Service, Kochin, Appex Door No.59/3368,APM Building North, Railway Station Road, Kochin
682018
Ernakulam
Kerala
3. D.T.D.C. Courier Service, Madivala, Master Franchisee, No.1/1,1 Main I Cross Opp. to Batta Show Room, Madivala Extension Hosur Road,
Bangalore
Bangalore
Karnataka
4. D.T.D.C. Courier Service,Opp.Little Flower School,
Mananthavady
Wayanad
Kerala
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

 

The Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite Parties to give the mobile phone to the complainant or if they failed to do so pay Rs.9,000/- being the value of the phone and to pass an order directing the Opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

 

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant is studying in Mary Matha College for BSc Computer Science. The complainant purchased a mobile phone from his friend Akash Francis in the month of March. The Brand of Mobile Phone is New Micro Max Yureka Mobile and the value is Rs.9,000/-. As directed by the Complainant, the above said phone was sent to the Complainant from the office of the 2nd Opposite party at Bangalore. A sum of Rs.120/- was charged by the Opposite Parties towards the courier charges and paid through bank account. The consignment was sent from Bangalore and the weight of the consignment was 470 grams. But when it was reached at Mananthavady at the office of the 4th Opposite party, the weight was 77 grams only. Since the consignment having lesser weight, the Complainant has got some doubt and when the packed was opened in the presence of 3rd Opposite Party, it was seen that the packet contains charger, head set, warranty card and screen guard only. But mobile and Battery were missing. Then the Opposite party promised the Complainant that the phone and the battery will get back within one week. But no response for 4th Opposite Party thereafter. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.

 

3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to Opposite Parties and notices were served to all the Opposite Parties on 15.07.2015. But Opposite parties No.1 to 4 not

appeared before the Forum and not filed version. Therefore Opposite parties No.1 to 4 were set exparte.

 

4. On perusal of complaint, and documents, the Forum raised the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

 

5. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to A3. Ext.A1 is the Consignment details received by the Complainant dated 18.03.2015 in domestic tracking. In Ext.A1, the weight shown is 0.077 kg when the packet reached at destination. In Ext.A1, at the time of billing, the weight shown is 0.470 kg. Ext.A2 is the acknowledgment for filing petition before police regarding the loss of mobile. Ext.A3 shows that the Complainant had paid Rs.120/- as courier charge for sending the mobile to Mananthavady. From this documents, the Forum found that at the time of sending the mobile from Bangalore to Mananthavady, the weight of the consignment was 0.470 kg. It means that apart from charger, head set, warranty card and screen guard, the mobile set and Battery was there in the consignment. But when it reached at Manathavady, the weight was 0.077 kg only. It means that the mobile is lost in transit. The Opposite parties are liable for the loss since the Opposite parties received consideration from the Complainant and undertook to transit the consignment in tact. It is up to the Opposite Parties to deny the allegations of the Complainant. But Opposite Parties remained exparte in this case. Hence the Forum is of the Opinion that the Opposite parties are liable to compensate the Complainant. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

 

6. Point No.2:- Since point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.

 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Parties are directed to give a new Micro Max Yureka mobile set with battery to the Complainant. If the Opposite parties are not ready for that pay Rs.9,000/- (Rupees Nine thousand ) only being the value of mobile phone to the Complainant. The Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as compensation and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as cost of the proceedings. The Opposite Parties shall comply the order jointly and severally within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the Complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum.

 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 4th day of September 2015.

Date of Filing:16.07.2015.

 

PRESIDENT :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

MEMBER :Sd/-

/True Copy/

 

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

 

 

 

APPENDIX.

 

Witness for the complainant:

 

Nil.

 

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

 

Nil.

 

Exhibits for the complainant:

 

A1. Copy of Consignment details.

A2. Copy of Receipt. dt:01.04.2015.

A3. Receipt.

 

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

 

Nil. 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Jose V. Thannikode]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Renimol Mathew]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MR. Chandran Alachery]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.