BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 04^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to refund the courier charges paid of Rs.190/- together with interest, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the proceedings, alleging deficiency of service.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant sent two consignments vide DTDC note No.F 06291708 and F 06291709 both dated 09.01.2012.  That the complainant paid a sum of Rs.95/- in respect of each consignment and the same were sent to her near relatives (her sister-in-laws) by name Smt.Pankajam Gopalan and Smt.Santha respectively and both were sent to their Chennai address.  That the consignments were consisting of traditional religious materials, like kumkum, Turmeric powder, hand held mirrors, combs etc.  That the said consignments were sent for ‘Sankranthi’ festival as per her religious tradition.  That the complainant paid a premium rate to OP, for guaranteed delivery of the above consignments on the next business day i.e., 10.01.2012, which is endorsed on consignment note by the DTDC.  That the complainant came to know that the consignments have not been delivered even after 3 days and hence she is sent an urgent complaint by e-mail on 12.01.2012 to OP.  That on 18.01.2012 i.e., after lapse of six days she received information by e-mail from OP stating that the above consignments were returned to her on 17.01.2012 and 18.01.2012 respectively.  That the said consignments were never returned to complainant on the above mentioned dates and OP was lying.  Therefore the complainant sent a show cause notice dated 18.01.2012 to OP by e-mail claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- in respect of each of the above contracts entered into with the company for delivery of consignments on the next day but having miserably failed to do so and having resorted to lies.  That the said show cause notice was also sent by speed post on 27.01.2012.

That on 19.01.2012 it seems that OP in Chennai contacted over phone the consignee in respect of consignment No.F 06291708 and promised to deliver it in the afternoon of that day but failed to turn up.  However the consignee herself visited the office and collected the same on that day at about 5.00 P.M.  That this amply proves that the reason assigned by OP earlier that there was no such person is utterly a fraud and further the claim of the company that the consignment was returned to complainant on 17.01.2012 was also a fraud.  That on 19.01.2012 complainant sent another e-mail, copy of which was also sent by speed post on 27.01.2012 to OP.  That on 30.01.2012 complainant received back the consignment bearing No.F 06291709 addressed to Smt.Santha at Chennai.  That the complainant received the same under protest and subject to legal action.  That on 28.01.2012 official of OP had a talk with complainant over phone followed by an e-mail dated 30.01.2012.  Wherein they have admitted and accepted the deficiency in service with regard to delivery of the above stated consignments.  That on 17.02.2012 the complainant sent another e-mail notice to OP which is reply to their e-mail dated 30.01.2012.  That since OP failed to respond to the e-mail notice sent by the complainant, having no other options she has approached this Forum for redressal.

3. In response to the notice issued OP appeared through their advocate and filed version contending in brief are as under:

That it is true that the complainant had booked two consignment bearing Nos.F06291708 and F06291709 on 09.01.2012 at Bangalore, destined to be delivered at Chennai.  That the complainant had not disclosed the contents of the consignments at the time of booking though there is an obligation on the part of the complainant to disclose the same.  That the mode of the service which the complainant had opted was normal service and as in the said normal service, usually the consignment will be delivered to consignee within two or three working days.  That out of the two consignments booked, one consignment was duly delivered to the consignee but the consignment bearing No.F06291709 was returned to the complainant as the address shown in the consignment cover was under lock and key and all occasions when OP went to the consignee’s place to deliver the consignment.  That despite several attempts made by the OP to deliver the consignment to the consignee, went in vain.  Therefore, the said consignment was returned to the complainant.  That the complainant despite knowing the fact, had sent several communications and written letters alleging deficiency of service on the part of OP.  That the OP had explained to the complainant under which circumstances the said consignment was returned and it was also made clear to the complainant that OP would not get anything by returning the said consignment.

That there is no deficiency of service rendered by the OP, therefore the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.  That it is well settled principles of law, in absence of any declaration to the content of the consignment at the time of booking, the transporter owes no liability towards special or consequential damages that the consignor may suffer in the event of any loss, damage or delay in delivering the consignment.  In the instant case the complainant had also not declared the contents of the consignment at the time of booking.  That it is under these circumstances claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- on the fictitious grounds is not tenable.

For the above, amongst other reasons, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant as well as OP tendered their evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the respective pleadings.  Both the parties have produced certain documents in support of their respective contentions.  Written arguments have been filed.  We have also heard oral arguments.

6. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

7. Admittedly the complainant had sent two consignments to her sister-in-laws, through OP, vide consignment note No.F 06291708 and F 06291709 on 09.01.2012.  The copy of receipt produced shows that the complainant has paid Rs.95/- in respect of each consignment.  The complainant claims that the said consignment consists of traditional religious materials, like Kumkum, Turmeric Powder, hand held mirrors, combs etc., and were sent for Sankranthi festival, as per her religious tradition.  Complainant claims that, OP guaranteed delivery of the said consignments on the next day i.e., on 10.01.2012, however the consignments were not delivered even after three days.  Therefore, she sent an urgent complaint by e-mail on 12.01.2012 to OP, the copy of which is produced.  OP does not deny the receipt of the said e-mail complaint dated 12.01.2012 sent by the complainant and also does not deny that they informed her by e-mail saying that the consignment have been returned to her on 17.01.2012 and 18.01.2012.  The subsequent events which has occurred definitely belies the e-mail dated 18.01.2012 sent by OP stating that the consignment have been returned to complainant on 17.01.2012 and 18.01.2012, though in fact the consignment were in Chennai on the above mentioned dates.

8. OP claims that one of the consignment bearing No.F 06291708 was delivered to the consignee successfully.  However they did not specifically state the date on which the said consignment was delivered to the consignee.  According to the materials placed on record by the complainant the said consignment bearing No.F 06291708 has been handed over to the consignee when she herself came over to the Chennai office of OP on that day at 5.00 PM, when they failed to deliver the consignment at her residence.  Despite the fact that the consignment was delivered after nearly 9 days from the date of booking, OP does not express any regret for the inordinate delay in delivering the consignment to the consignee.  Further their e-mail stating that the said consignment No.F 06291708 has been returned to complainant on 17.01.2012 is blatantly false statement.  In fact the consignment No.F 06291709 sent to Smt.Santha has been delivered back to complainant only on 30.01.2012 though it was informed to the complainant through e-mail dated 18.01.2012 stating that said consignment has been returned to her on 18.01.2012.

9. The complainant claims that she has sent those consignments consisting of religious materials like kumkum, turmeric powder, hand held mirrors, combs etc., for Sankranthi festival as per their religious tradition.  The said consignments which have been booked on 09.01.2012 ought to have been delivered either on 10^th or 11^th of January 2012.  According to OP the consignment opted for normal service as in this case will be delivered to the consignee within two or three working days.  However in this case one of the consignment has been delivered after 9 days and there is no satisfactory explanation by the OP for the inordinate delay in delivering the said consignment.  Furthermore no satisfactory explanation is provided by the OP in not delivering the another consignment bearing No.F 06291709, despite the fact that, the consignee Smt.Santha is residing in the said address for the last several years.  OP has not at all produced any material to show that they visited the house of Smt.Santha for delivery and found her house, every time under lock and key.  Looking to the conduct of OP we seriously doubt the statement of OP that they made sincere efforts to deliver the consignment to Smt.Santha.

10. Admittedly both the consignment were meant to be delivered a day or two prior to Sankranthi or at least on the day of Sankranthi.  Though complainant has booked the consignment on 09.01.2012 five days in advance to Sankranthi, OP has failed to deliver the consignment at least on the date of Sankranthi.  As could be seen from the averments made in the complainant, the complainant attaches high sentimental values to the said consignment and it was her desire to see that the consignment reaches her sister-in-laws a day or two earlier to the Sankranthi festival.  Complainant alleges that due to utter negligence, lethargic, indifferent attitude of OP, she has suffered utmost mental agony.  Further because of the inapt handling of the situation by OP the complainant has been made to enter into unwarranted correspondence with OP thereby wasting her precious time and energy.  Though the OP now denies any deficiency of service on their part but in their e-mail dated 30.01.2012, the copy of which is produced, they have accepted deficiency in service on their part.  The relevant portion of the said e-mail send by OP to complainant is as under:

“At the outset, we would like to put forward our sincere apologies for any inconveniences caused to you and at the same time, we thank you very much for bringing this deficiency to our notice so that such isolated incidents can be removed from our system by taking necessary steps to overcome the same.

We also notice that your mail is an eye opener for us at Corporate Office to prune our system and the very sentiments and concern you have expressed with regards to our Organization very clearly shows that you are one of our well wishers.

We also request you to view the said incident in isolation and not as a true reflection of our service levels.  We implore you to kindly condone this incident and give us one more chance to serve you”.

11. OP having thanked complainant for bringing to their notice the deficiencies of services, through their e-mail as extracted above, now cannot be permitted to deny that there is any deficiency of service on their part, in handling those two consignments.  The complainant has successfully proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP in handling the two consignments which were booked by her on 09.01.2012.  Accordingly point No.1 is answered.

12. Point no.2 – Despite admitting deficiency of service on their part, OP should have promptly refunded the charges levied at least for the consignment bearing no.F 06291709 which was not delivered to the consignee.  The consignment No.F 06291708 though was to be delivered within two or three days from the date of booking, but was delivered to the consignee only on 19.01.2012.  The delayed delivery of the consignment No.F 06291708 has actually defeated the purpose for which the consignment was sent to the consignee by the complainant.  Therefore, we feel it appropriate to direct OP to refund a sum of Rs.190/- levied by them for shipping both consignments from Bangalore to Chennai.  Further we feel it appropriate to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- for deficiency of service on their part resulting in great inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the complainant as well as members of her family, together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  Accordingly point no.2 is answered.

13. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP is directed to refund a sum of Rs.190/- to the complainant within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.  Further OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards deficiency of service resulting in inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the complainant and the members of her family together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 04^th day of February 2017)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 20.03.2014.

1. Ms.N Sakuntala.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 26.04.2014.

1. Sri.Sujith.   

Document produced by the Opposite party:

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*