Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1094/2019

Dilpreet Singh Gandhi - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Corporate Office - Opp.Party(s)

Arveen Sekhon & Vaibhav Mittal

04 May 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1094/2019
Date of Institution	:	03/12/2019
Date of Decision	:	04/05/2022

 

Dilpreet Singh Gandhi r/o H.No.312, Sector 46-A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. DTDC Corporate Office, DTDC House No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore.
2. DTDC North Zone HHP Region Plot No.198, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Panchkula, Haryana.
3. DTDC West Zone No.10, Mill Officers Colony, Opp. Times of India, Behind Old Reserve Bank, Ahmedabad.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                               

 

ARGUED BY	:	None for complainant
	:	Sh. B.S. Walia, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Presiding Member

1.      The facts in brief are, complainant is running a law office in the name and style of Gandhi & Co. and one Mr. Paramjit Singh engaged his office for ongoing matter in High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad.  In order to pursue the matter, complainant’s office drafted bail application alongwith attested affidavits and handed over the same to the OP on 9.8.2019 for delivery at Ahmedabad for filing bail application.  The package contained very important documents like certified copies of FIR, certified copies of order of rejection. However, the said parcel, which was thought to be delivered within 2-3 days, did not reach destination even after two weeks. Since the documents were required to be sent urgently, complainant had to arrange all the certified documents again and the same were sent through a different courier on 19.8.2019.  The parcel sent through OP finally was delivered on 24.8.2019 whereas the parcel sent through another courier was delivered within stipulated time on 19.8.2019. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, complainant filed the instant consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint and admitted the factual matrix. Averred if the complainant wanted that the parcel should be delivered at the earliest to the addressee, then he was required to book the parcel under prime track, charges of which were higher. Maintained the parcel could not be delivered on 22.8.2019 as the receiver was not available. The parcel was finally received by the addressee on 28.8.2019.   Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint.
3.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case, including written arguments.
5.     It is evident from Annexure C-1 that the complainant paid an amount of ₹180/- for the purpose of sending certain documents to Ahmedabad. It has been alleged through this consumer complaint that the consignment containing certified copies of FIR, order of rejection etc., meaning thereby very important documents, could not reach destination even after expiry of two weeks. The said parcel which was booked on 9.8.2019 ultimately reached the destination on 28.8.2019 which as per the complainant is clear deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
6.     The stand of the OPs/DTDC is that in case if the complainant wanted to deliver the parcel at the earliest to the addressee, then he was required to book the parcel under prime track charges of which were higher. It has been contended that the parcel could not be delivered on 22.8.2019 as the receiver was not available.
7.     After a careful perusal of the documents on record, it is abundantly clear that the parcel which was booked on 9.8.2019 could reach the addressee on 28.8.2019 only. Due to failure on the part of OPs to deliver the parcel in time, complainant had to again arrange the same parcel for which he, as per the complaint on record, had to again call his client from Amritsar to Chandigarh to send certified copies of documents which not only cost him again but also caused undue harassment to him as well as his client.
8.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹2,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay ₹1,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

9.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
10.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
04/05/2022	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member