DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

Case   No:   CC- 86 of 2019

Smt. Milan Dey(Datta)

W/O. Tulsi Dey,

Resident of Joynagar, 1-1/2 Lane,

Dhasamighat Road, Opp. Of Ramji Marriage Hall,

P.O. Agartala, 

Dist.-West Tripura    .…..............…..........................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. D.T.D.C.

E2/16, Block, E-2, Jhandewlan Extension,

Metro Stations,

Jhandewlan, New Delhi-110005.

 

2. Sri Sumantha Biswas,

D.T.D.C Copurier,

Jagannath Bari Road,

Near Longtarai Hotel, Agartala,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001.

 

3. Sri Srikanta Biswas,

D.T.D.C Courier,

Jagannath Bari Road,

Near Longtarai Hotel, Agartala,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin-799001........................... Opposite parties.

 

 

    

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

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 : Shri Ranjan Bhattacharya,

  Shri Basudev Chakraborty,

  Mrs. Mallika Roy,

  Advocates. 

For the O.Ps.  : Shri Abhijit Gonchoudhury,

  Shri Bimal Deb,

  Shri Amal Kr. Gupta,

Advocates.    

                                                                                                                             

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 27/10/2021.

 

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Smt. Milan Dey(Datta), set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the complainant applied for nomination for VAYOSHREHTHA SAMMAN (National Award for Sr. Citizen) 2019 in individual category, in Courage & Bravery. Thereafter, the Complainant sent her documents through DTDC from Agartala as on 12/09/2019 to Mr. S. S. Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India which to be reached to the destination before 16/09/2019. The DTDC Office Agartala has sent the same on time but the Delhi DTDC did not deliver on time but many times they were called from Agartala Office but no fruitful response received. Already the Govt. of India has declared awarded amount Rs.1,50,000/-. The Govt. of Tripura selected her for State Level Sr. Citizen Award. If the consignment would have been reached before date she might have been selected and awarded. The D.T.D.C. had not rendered service to hand over the materials in time to the destination point for such negligence of service. The Complainant alleged that due to negligent act and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. she had suffered harassment and mental agony. The Complainant has thus prayed for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- against the O.Ps.

Hence this case. 

 

2. The O.Ps. have resisted the case by filing written statement and have denied deficiency of service on their part. The O.Ps.  however stated that Complainant in no way has established  that the O.Ps. had made any negligence in rendering their service towards the Complainant and hence the complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed. The O.Ps. always maintained the consignment numbers of the articles which are to be delivered to the parties. So, the articles are only identified by their consignment number otherwise it is difficult for the O.Ps. to identify the articles which are not delivered to the party concerned.  The O.Ps. however denied about the complainant's making inquiry with the DTDC Courier service Agartala and contacting with it's Manager concerning non delivery of the booked item. The O.Ps. also stated that the complaint is not maintainable at all in its present form and nature due to non-joinder of necessary party. 

The O.Ps. have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint taking the plea that the O.Ps. did not commit any deficiency of service towards the Complainant. 

 

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

The Complainant examined herself as PW-I and submitted her examination in chief by way of affidavit. She has produced 15 documents comprising 32 sheets under a Firisti dated 16/10/2019 & 17/03/2021. 

The O.Ps. did not adduce evidence.  

 

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

 

 

4.  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues are made for determination:  

   (i). Whether the complaint is maintainable in law? 

   (ii). Whether  there was  any deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

    (iii). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation/relief ?

 

5. ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES:

      Both sides submitted their written argument. In the written argument submitted by the Complainant side, it is argued that the Complainant filed her claim petition before the O.Ps. along with all original documents which are lying with them. It is further argued that she applied for nomination for VAYOSHREHTHA SAMMAN (National Award for Sr. Citizen) 2019 in individual category, in Courage & Bravery. Thereafter, the Complainant sent her documents through DTDC from Agartala as on 12/09/2019 to Mr. S. S. Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India which to be reached to the destination before 16/09/2019. The DTDC Office Agartala has sent the same on time but the Delhi DTDC did not deliver on time. Already the Govt. of India has declared awarded amount Rs.1,50,000/-. The Govt. of Tripura has also selected her for State Level Sr. Citizen Award. The D.T.D.C. had not rendered service to hand over the materials in time to the destination. For that the Complainant have not been nominated or selected. The Complainant alleged that due to negligent act and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. she suffered a lot.   

                On the other hand Learned Counsel for the O.Ps. argued that the O.Ps. had not made any negligence in rendering their service towards the Complainant and there is no deficiency in service and hence the complaint of the Complainant is liable to be dismissed. The O.Ps. always maintained the consignment numbers of the articles which are to be delivered to the parties being a Courier Service Company. So, the articles are only identified by their consignment number otherwise it is difficult for the O.Ps. to identify the articles which are not delivered to the party concerned. Learned Counsel of the O.Ps. further submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as Deputy Secretary Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India is not made a party and they are necessary party for determination of the issues. Learned Counsel further submitted that the DTDC, Delhi delivered the Consignment No.V56129323 to the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment in time and Complainant has failed to prove that the letter was not delivered to Mr. S. S. Kumar, Deputy Secretary Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India. It is further submitted that according to the system of the Office, the staff of the O.Ps. are not allowed to go inside the Office at New Delhi due to security problem and in fact the letter was reached to the destination. Learned Counsel of the O.Ps. at last submitted that the Complainant has failed to prove her case in respect of deficiency of service and it is liable to be dismissed with cost. 

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  All the points are taken-up together for convenience for decisions. 

      We have carefully gone through the pleadings as well as evidence adduced by the Complainant. The Complainant in her deposition stated that she applied for nomination for VAYOSHREHTHA SAMMAN (National Award for Sr. Citizen) 2019 in individual category, in Courage & Bravery. She sent her application through DTDC from Agartala on 12/09/2019 addressee to Mr. S. S. Kumar, Deputy Secretary Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India which was supposed to reach on or before 16/09/2019. She further deposed that the amount of award scheduled by the Govt. of India was Rs.2,50,000/-. She might have achieved the award if her application was reached in time to the addressee. She further deposed that due to deficiency of service she under gone depression. 

              From the complaint petition as well as from the deposition of the Complainant, we found that the application/ letter was supposed to reach to Mr. S. S. Kumar, Deputy Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India on or before 16/09/2019. In the instant proceedings the Deputy Secretary, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Govt. of India is a necessary party. Only they can say whether they received the letter or not. But Complainant failed to make them party for which the proceedings is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 

 

7.  We have meticulously gone through the pleadings as well as evidence adduced by the Complainant and also written argument submitted from both sides. Considering the nature and facts of this case we found that the allegations of the Complainant is totally based on hypothetical. So, we are in the opinion that the complaint petition is not maintainable in its present form and nature. 

  Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed and no costs. 

Supply a certified copy of the judgment to both the parties free of cost. 

  Announced.

 

 

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

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.