BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 139 of 2015

Date of Institution: 09-03-2015

Date of Decision: 15-09-2015  

Anil Sankhyan son of Sh.Mangat Ram, resident of # 401-A, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited, Dilwari Tower, Court Road, Amritsar GPO, Amritsar-143001 (Franchisee of below mentioned company)
2. DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited, Registered Office-No.3, Victoria Road, Bengaluru-560047.   

Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Present: For the Complainant: In person.

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Rupesh Mahendru, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member     

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sh.Anil Sankhyan  under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he sent a courier to Paramount TPA Healthcare Private Limited, D-39, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 vide consignment No.Z40249566 on 2.2.2014 and shown delivered on DTDC website on 4.2.2014 but the same was actually not delivered as recipient denied this on telephone and also confirmed on e-mail. The complainant asked the Opposite Parties  to provide DRS of the said consignment number, but the Opposite Parties  failed to supply the CN sticker and recipient signature/ stamp on DRS. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to make the payment of compensation of 1 lac.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties. So, Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.5.2015 of this Forum. Similarly, Opposite Party No.2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 28.4.2015 of this Forum. However, at later stage, Opposite Parties  No.1 & 2 appeared and tendered into their evidence .
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Pankaj Kumar son of Mehar Singh Ex.OP1,2/1 alongwith terms and condition Ex.OP1,2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Opposite Parties.   
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of  ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties.
6. From the averments of the complainant and evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant booked one consignment  bearing No.Z40249566 on 2.2.2014 with the Opposite Parties for delivery to Paramount TPA Healthcare Private Limited, D-39, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020. Opposite Parties  have shown the said consignment delivered to consignee on DTDC website on 4.2.2014, whereas the consignee i.e. Paramount TPA Healthcare Private Limited, D-39, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 had denied that they had received the said consignment through Opposite Parties. Complainant asked the local office of Opposite Parties  Help Desk to provide the DRS of the consignment. The complainant received the DRS on 10.1.2015 Ex.C4, but there was no CN sticker, nor signatures of the recipient nor there was stamp of recipient on the DRS. The complainant asked the Opposite Parties  to show the signatures of the recipient who received the said consignment, but the Opposite Parties  did not provide any detail regarding the delivery of the consignment to the consignee at New Delhi and the complainant was forced to file the present complaint. The complainant, therefore, submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
7. Whereas the case of the Opposite Parties as per the affidavit of Sh.Pankaj Kumar of the Opposite Party Ex.OP1,2/1 is that the parcel i.e. consignment of the complainant as sent through Opposite Parties i.e. DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited, but the goods were lost during transit, therefore, dispute is to be settled as per the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties as per clause 5 which deals  with the limitation of responsibility of the DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited for any loss or damage to the shipment, will be strictly limited to Rs.100/- for each shipment, which includes all documents or parcels consigned through DTDC by the Shipper. Opposite Parties produced on record the terms and conditions Ex.OP1,2/2. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties  submitted that the Opposite Parties  are ready to settle the claim of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the shipment. Ld.counsel for the opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
8. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant sent one consignment i.e. medical bills, receipts, vouchers in a parcel to Paramount TPA Healthcare (Private) Limited, D-39, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I, New Delhi-110020 vide consignment dated 2.12.2014 Ex.C2 through Opposite Parties on 2.12.2014 which was to be delivered to the consignee at New Delhi, but said consignment was not delivered to the consignee at New Delhi. However, the Opposite Parties have falsely shown on their website that the consignment in question was delivered to the consignee on 4.12.2014. Not only this, the Opposite Parties  have also produced on record DRS Ex.C4 to prove that the consignment was delivered to the consignee at New Delhi, but this DRS does not show any signature of the recipient nor stamp of the recipient nor any CN sticker to prove that the parcel was delivered to the consignee. On the other hand, Sh.Pankaj Kumar of the Opposite Parties who filed his affidavit Ex.OP1,2/1 on behalf or the Opposite Parties  has admitted that the parcel was  sent by the complainant through Opposite Parties  to the consignee at New Delhi, but the goods were lost during transit and same could not be delivered to the consignee. All this shows that Opposite Parties  could not deliver the consignment to the consignee at New Delhi. As such, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
9. Opposite Parties  have shown their intention that they are ready to settle the claim on the basis of terms and conditions of the shipment Ex.OP1,2/2 @ Rs.100/- per shipment. We have gone through the terms and conditions of the shipment. Firstly, these  terms and conditions were never supplied to the complainant nor these terms and conditions were ever signed or agreed upon by the complainant. So, these terms and conditions are not binding upon the complainant. However, the complainant could not mention as to what were the documents/ subject matter which he had sent in parcel to the consignee through Opposite Parties  as per receipt Ex.C2 nor he has mentioned as to how much loss in terms of money he has suffered due to non delivery of the consignment by the Opposite Parties  to the consignee. However, the complainant has stated that he has sent the bills, prescription slips and vouchers of medical claim through Opposite Parties  to the consignee, so it can not be said how much loss the complainant has suffered in terms of money due to non delivery of the consignment by the Opposite Parties to the consignee. But certainly, the Opposite Parties  are in deficiency of service qua the complainant, as a result of which  the complainant suffered loss.
10. Consequently, we hold that the complainant is entitled to compensation. Therefore,  Opposite Parties are directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation. The Opposite Parties  are also directed to pay to the complainant, the costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.1,000/-.  Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 15-09-2015.                                          (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                                President

hrg                                                (Anoop Sharma)     (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

              Member                         Member