DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.160/2014

Ms. Kiron Prabhkar

W/o Sh. Sandeep Prabhakar

R/o F-1/11, Hauz Khas Enclave,

New Delhi-110016                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

 DHL Express (India) Private Ltd.

through Mr. Mohammad Ahmad (Manager)

 A-1/1 Hauz Khas, Aurobindo Marg,

Near Hauz Khas Masjid,

Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016

Also at:

DHL Express (India) Private Ltd.

through Mr. R. S. Subramanian,

Country Manager,

A. K. Marg, Bandra East,

Mumbai (Bombay)-400051                               ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      :      22.04.2014          Date of Order    :     16.09.2017

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

As per the averments made in the complaint, the case of the complainant is that the complainant’s son Mr. Karan Prabhakar was pursuing a course in the Theatre of Arts, University of Arizona, State of Arizona, United States. The terms of the course was four years commencing from 01.01.13 to 01.12.16.  The fee for the course was to be paid on semester basis. Payment of the last semester was due on 20.11.13. The complainant made a demand draft for timely payment of the fees vide DD No.079657 dated 14.11.13 in favour of University of Arizona. The demand draft was made for $5168 (USD) which was duly issued by the Standard Chartered Bank.  The complainant engaged the OP’s services for the shipment of the aforesaid demand draft on 16.11.13 to be delivered to the Bursar’s office, University of Arizona, 888 N. Euclid, Room No. 104, Tucson, AZ 85721. A shipment/cash receipt was provided to the complainant of Rs.1899/- dated 16.11.13 bearing Air Waybill number 6068610085 by the OP. On 06.12.13 the complainant’s son was informed by the Bursar’s office of the University that the payment in respect of the tuition fee had not been credited in their account. The complainant called the OP telephonically to enquire about the reason of the pending delivery of the demand draft. However, no concrete response was given by the OP regarding the whereabouts of the undelivered demand draft. After many phone calls she visited the OP’s local office on 31.12.13 but the OP did not explain the reasons regarding delay in the shipment of the demand draft which was a financial instrument of a very high value. The complainant suspected that there may be some foul play in the process but no response was received from the OP. On 02.01.14 the complainant’s son sent an email with regard to the missing demand draft which was answered by the  OP’s employee Ms. Parvathi Reddy, who informed that they were trying to trace the missing shipment. Despite the empty assurance by the OP’s side, the demand draft was not located.  After two months of continuous follow up on 08.01.014 Ms. Parvathi Reddy, Customer Care Executive of OPs sent an email to the complainant  admitting that the shipment of the demand draft had not been delivered to the University and it had not been located at any shipment transiting hub. This mail clearly showed and confirmed that there was a serious deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Having no other remedy the complainant was forced to cancel the demand draft on 09.01.14.  It is clear that OPs failed to inform the complainant regarding non-delivery of the  demand draft for a period of 45 days with malafide and dishonest intention to misappropriate the demand draft. It is submitted that it is a common practice in courier  services that if the shipment is not delivered for any particular reason, the same is  immediately communicated to the consignor and the package is sent back to him/her.  Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice on 27.01.14 through her counsel but the OP did not reply to the legal notice. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-

“a)     All costs towards making the demand draft amounting to Rs.872/-;

b)      All costs towards sending the demand draft amounting to Rs.1899/-.

c)       All costs incurred due to fluctuation in currency exchange rate in the value of the Demand Draft recovered upon cancellation amounting to Rs.20666/-.

d)      All costs incurred to the penalty imposed by the University amounting to USD 100/-;

e)       All damages for trauma, mental agony harassment caused by such disservice, follow with the Opposite party regarding non delivery,  the stress regarding the apprehension of losing the University seat due to inordinate delay in payment of the tuition fee and wastage of valuable professional time in follow up by the complainant and her staff members amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-

f)        An amount of Rs.51,000/- towards the cost of litigation.”

OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.08.14 passed by our predecessors.

Complainant has filed her own affidavit in exparte evidence and written arguments.

Complainant has filed a copy of demand draft No.079657 dated 14.11.13 as copy Annexure C-1 and copy of shipment receipt issued by the OP as Annexure C-2. The complainant vide letter dated 16.01.14 requested the bank to cancel the above demand draft as Annexure C-2. The complainant sent various emails to the OPs (copy Annexure C-4). Copy of e-mail sent on behalf of the OP to the complainant has been filed on the record which is dated 08.01.14. We mark it as Mark AA for the purposes of identification. The relevant portion of the same reads as under:-

“…. We regret to inform you that your shipment has not been delivered to your consignee and apologize for the inconvenience caused to you.

Extensive searches have been conducted worldwide at all transiting hubs but the shipment has not been located.

At DHL we are committed to high standards of service and are very concerned when such exceptions occur. We request you to treat this incident as an isolated one and assure you that our Senior Managers have reviewed this to ensure that such incidents do not recur.

Please contact us for any clarifications required…”

Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged and hence there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant.

The OP did not inform the complainant regarding non-delivery of the booked article due to which she had to face mental agony and tension as the fees was not received by the college in time. It is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

We, therefore, allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay Rs.25000/- in lumpsum towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OP shall become liable to pay the above stated amount of Rs.25000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.     

      Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 16.09.2017.