Orissa

Jajapur

CC/12/2017

Madhusmita Mohanty - Complainant(s)

Versus

D.T.D.C Courior Service. - Opp.Party(s)

Pratap Kumar Ray,Rajiv Kumar Mohanty.

30 Aug 2017

ORDER

   IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                     

                                              Dated the 30th day of August,2017.

                                                      C.C.Case No.12 of 2017

Madhusmita Mohanty  W/OSariputta Mohanty 

At. Plot No.6, G.H /1150 /D-19,Sec.9,C.D.A,Cuttack

P.S. Market Nagar,  Dist.-Cuttack .  

At present:

C/O Sariputta Mohanty

Vill/P.O/Sujnapur,P.S.Jajpur Sadar,

Dist.Jajpur                                                                         …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.D.T.D.C,courier service, At. Habeli Bazar,P.O/P.S/Dist.Jajpur

2.D.T.D.C,Couier service,Franchise/, WF-048, Metro Bell View (DG-04)

Ground floor, satichoura, cuttack.

3.Branch Manager, D.T.D.C Bhubnaeswar ,At. Bhaskar Tower, Ground floor,

Plot No.73, P.S. Kharvel Nagar, BBSR,

4.Suresh Bansal (Director) D.T.D.C, Corporate office at D.T.D.C,House-21-3

Victoria Road,Bangalore,560047,Karnatak.

                                                                                                                            ……………..Opp.Parties.                  

For the Complainant:                                   Sri P.K.Ray,Sri R.K.Mohanty,Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties : No.1 and 2                 None.

For the Opp.parties: No.3                            Sri N.K.Patra, Sri S.S.Das, Advocates.

For the Opp.parties No.4                             None.                                                                                         

                                                                                                 Date of order:   30.08.2017.

SHRI  JIBAN BALLAV  DAS , PRESIDENT  .

Deficiency in courier service is the grievance of the complainant.

            The fact relevant in the complaint petition are  that the petitioner is having her permanent address vill/P.O.Sujanpur, P.S.Jajpur Sadar Dist.jajpur but she is temporarily staying at Cuttack.  The petitioner/consigner purchased a Hand set mobile of Motorla company  paying the cost of Rs.15,999/ through flip cart on 17.12.16 and subsequently send the same to her son namly Sarthak Mohanty through D.T.D.C courier situated at Satichoura,  Ctttack (O.P.no.2 ) which is after  completion of required formalities as well as paying  service and consignment charges for the transportation .

            That it is pertinent to mention here that neither the mobile handset of the   consigner  reached   at its  destination nor the O.P informed anything about the status of consignment to the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner contacted  with O.P.no.2 over phone but did not get  any satisfactorily reply.  On the other hand due to  the attitude of the O.P  the petitioner suffered  mental agony . Accordingly the petitioner served a legal notice to the O.Ps and after receipt of the legal notice the O.P.no. 2 vide his reply on dt.7.2.17 intimated  the petitioner to appear  before him within 7 days from receipt of the reply for which the petitioner appeared before O.P.no.2 in time and requested  him to do the needful at his end. The OP.no.2 assured  her to  solve her problem and directed her to meet the O.P.no.1 (Branch  office of O.Ps) at Jajpur Town for necessary compliance .

As per  advice of O.P.no.2 the petitioner met O.P.no.1 at Jajpur Town who directed the petitioner to sign on the claim form and accordingly the petitioner signed on the same but till today the petitioner neither received the consignment nor received any correspondence  about the matter.

            Accordingly finding no other alternative,  the petitioner was constrained to knock the door of this Fora to direct the O.P  to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh along with the alleged consignment .

            There are four nos of O.ps  in the present dispute. Out of them after service of notice ,  the O.P.no. 3 appeared through the learned advocate and  filed the written version . Other O.Ps   neither appeared nor filed any written version  in the present dispute . Hence  they have been set- exparte  by this Fora vide order  dt.03 07.17.

            The O.P.no.3 has taken the plea that the instant petition as framed and filed  is not maintainable under the law   and the  same is liable to be dismissed.

*That the case utterly fails for  want of cause of action against the O.Ps .

*That the complainant is not entitled  to any relief / reliefs  against the O.Ps.

*That the averment made in  1^st para of the complaint petition has to be  proved by the petitioner.

*That the averment made in para3,4,5,6,7,8,9 has to be proved by the petitioner .

*That the documents  filed  by  the petitioner which has been mentioned  in para-10 has to be proved by the petitioner.

*That para-11 of the petition is totally false and fabricated and it is pertinent to mention here that                         D.T.D.C Express Ltd (formerly known as DTDC  courier & Cargo) is one of the best courier                       company of India . So,  a company of this stature  and having such a good will  and brand  name will never harass of any customer .

            In the fact and circumstance of  the case as  narrated above it is respectfully prayed that  the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary  cost.

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate  for both the parties. After perusal of the record along with documents  filed from both the sides  it is observed that  :

1. it is undisputed fact that the petitioner after purchase of the said mobile through flip cart  paying the cost of Rs.15,999/- has sent the same  through O.P.no. 2 to the permanent destination of the petitioner /consigner by paying  of Rs,750/- on dt.17.12.16 as consignment charges bearing No. 0553636V32730716  dt.17.12.16

2. it is also undisputed fact that due to non receipt of  the said consignment at the destination the petitioner served a legal notice to the O.P.no 2 along with other O.Ps. After receipt of the said notice the O.P.No.2 in  his reply letter dt. 07.02.17 instructed the petitioner to appear before him within 7 days after receipt of this letter and  it is also the  fact that the petitioner  appeared before O.P.no.2 in the  stipulated time and as per advice of O.P.no. 2 she meet O.P.no.1  and signed the claim form before O.P.no.1 (branch office of O.P.) . Besides this the O.P.no.3 also  has taken the stand in the written version that  D.T.D.C Express Ltd . is one of the best courier company of India ,so a company of this stature and having such a good will and brand name will never harass any of his customer . On the other hand the O.P.no.3 did not clarify about the fact of the dispute but  only has  denied the allegation without producing  any documentary   evidence .

            The next aspect relates to consider  is that the O.P.no. 1,2 and 4 have neither appeared in the present dispute nor filed any written version  about their stand though the notice of the present dispute are duly served  . Hence, we are bound to accept the uncontroverted  statement of

the   petitioner made in the complaint petition as per observation of the Hon’ble State Commission, Odisha reported in 2003-Vol-96 p,15 C.D. Case No.37/02 wherein it is held that :

            In absence of the written version by the O.P this Forum is bound to accept the uncontroverted statement  of the complaint petition  .

And

2013 (1) CPR-507.NC wherein it s is that

            In  case W.V not filed after  several opportunity it has no defence on merit.

Accordingly we are inclined to hold that the O.P  have no defence in the present dispute  and the blame shall be placed at the door of the O.Ps in view of observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (1)CPR-106 (S.C)  (Nath brothers Vs. best Road ways Ltd ) wherein it is held ,by the Appex court that the O.P.no.2 has received the mobile set for transportation as that of an insurer . As such to meet the ends of justice we allow  the dispute treating the petitioner statement of the complaint petition  uncontroverted .

Hence this Order

            In the result  the dispute is allowed against the OPs.  The O.Ps are directed to return the alleged New  Motorla Hand  set with same model and same feature or return the price of the alleged mobile set worth of  Rs.15,999/-  along with compensation Rs.12,000/- (twelve thousand  only ) for mental agony  and harassment  and fee taken for consignment )  within one month after receipt of the order, failing which  the said awarded  amount will carry 12 % interest from  the date of filing of the present dispute till its realization . In case non compliance of the order  the petitioner is at liberty  to recover the same under the provision of  this Act.

                        This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of August,2017. under my hand and seal of the Forum.