Delhi

North

CC/287/2017

M.C. SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC COURIER AND CARGO LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jun 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

CC NO.287/2017

In the matter of

Sh. M.C.Sharma (deceased)

Through LRs

1. Smt Manju Sharma

W/o Late Sh.Mool Chand Sharma

2. Sh.Sheel Pathak

S/o Late Sh.Mool Chand Sharma

3. Sh.Neel Pathak

S/o Late Sh.Mool Chand Sharma

R/o 13/113, Vasundhara Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh

Also at       

Lawyers Chambers Block

E-616, Karkardooma Courts

Delhi-110032                                                                  ……Complainant

Versus

DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.

DTDC Courier

F-17-B, Ground floor

Main road, Opposite NDPL office

Vijay Nagar, Delhi-110009

Also at :

Gate Number 5, near Post office

Tis Hazari Courts

Delhi-110054

Also at :-

B-101, Phase-1, Industrial Area Naraina

Delhi-110028

Also at :

DTDC House No.3

Victoria Road, Banglore-560047, Karnataka                      …      Opposite Party

 

ORDER
01/06/2023

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present case was filed by Sh. M.C. Sharma, the Complainant against DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd., the Opposite Party (OP) with the allegations of deficiency in services.  During the pendency of the complaint, the complainant expired and the LRs were brought on record vide order dated 06/01/2023.

1. Briefly stated the fact of the present complaint are that on 06/10/2017, the complainant had booked the consignment services of the OP for delivering some important documents pertaining to land, from Delhi to Mumbai.  As the delivery of the documents was urgent, as there was a prospective buyer in the Mumbai for purchase of the land, therefore, the complainant opted for the special services provided by the OP (DTDC Blue).  The complainant was assured that the consignment shall reached to its destination in Parel, Mumbai on the next day 07/10/2017, for which the complainant paid Rs.350/- as charges.
2. The consignment was assigned tracking numberV39601357, which was shared by complainant with the recipient, his partner.
3. As per the assurance given by the OP, the appointment was fixed for the said land deal with the buyer on 08/10/2017.  The complainant has alleged that he was tracking the consignment on his Mobile phone device and the consignment was “out for delivery” for the first time on 07/10/2017 at 15:41 hours from Fort, Mumbai and the status at 21:03 hours on 07/10/2017 was “Not delivered”.  The complainant has stated that there was absolutely no movement or communication with the recipient of the consignment and as there was delay in delivery of the consignment containing documents the deal was cancelled.
4. The complainant tried to contact the OP on their customer care helpline but every time the call automatically got disconnected after about 02 minutes and 20 seconds on the pretext that all the customer care executives were busy.  Ultimately, an email dated 09/10/2017 at 2.00 p.m.was written with the customer care of the OP.
5. The consignment finally reached its destination in Parel Mumbai after 03 days i.e. on 10/10/2017, by then the buyer had called off the deal as the documents were not delivered on time by the OP.  The complainant has also stated that consignment had reached Fort, Mumbai instead of Parel Mumbai due to the negligence on the part of the OP.  Complainant has alleged that the act/omission on the part of the OP in delay in delivery of the consignment has caused huge loss of at least Rs.10,00,000/- as well as loss of goodwill, confidence and trust of his partner.
6. Legal notice was also served upon OP, which was neither replied nor complied with. The complainant has prayed for compensation for loss suffered due to delay in delivery of the consignment of Rs.10,00,000/-and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses. 
7. Track shipment status/consignment status for the consignment booked by the complainant, an email dated 09/10/2017, Courier receipt dated 06/10/2017, Legal notice along with original speed post receipt and tracking report  have been annexed with the complaint. 
8. Notice of the present complaint was served to the OP.  Thereafter, written statement was filed on their behalf, where they have taken several preliminary objections such as: the complaint is not maintainable as contents of the consignment were not declared by the complainant at the time of booking consignment.  The consignment was not insured /risk was not covered, the value of the consignment was not declared at the time of booking.  Even otherwise in case of any loss and damage the liability of the OP was limited to Rs.500/- as per the terms and conditions of the consignment.  It has been admitted that the complainant had booked the consignment from Delhi to Mumbai through DTDC (Blue) services.  It has been denied that the complainant was assured that the consignment shall be delivered on the next day.  In fact, it was said that the consignment shall be delivered on 2^nd working day and the charges of the shipment were as per the price list of the company.  They have also submitted that purpose of booking the consignment was never disclosed. They have denied that the complainant or the consignee tried to contact the OP.   
9. They have submitted that the consignment was forwarded by taking all due care and caution, but same was misrouted and the moment it came to the knowledge of the OP, the office of the OP immediately rectified their mistake and delivered the consignment on the correct address.  They have annexed the terms and conditions of DTDC (Blue) services and specimen copy of the consignment with their written statement. Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied
10. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant where the contents of the complaint have been reaffirmed.  The complainant has got exhibited the consignment receipt as Ex.CWA/A; the consignment tracking number V39601357 as Ex.CW1/A-1; tracking report pertaining to the consignment as Ex.CW1/B (colly), an email dated 09/10/2017 as Ex.CW1/C (colly); Legal notice alongwith postal receipt and tracking report of the said legal notice are Ex.CW1/D, Ex.CW1/E and Ex.CW1/F respectively.  The complainant has also relied upon the General Power of Attorney executed in favour of the complainant and his partner alongwith an affidavit of his partner as Ex.CW1/G and Ex.CW1/H respectively.
11. We have heard the argument on behalf of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. Counsel for the OP.  We have gone through the written submission filed by the parties. Booking of consignment is an admitted fact.  If we look at Ex.CW1/A, the receipt issued by OP, the same does not bear signature of the complainant.   It has been held in ‘Sudhir Deshpande vs Elbee Services Ltd. Bombay, I (1994) CPJ 140(NC) by Hon’ble NCDRC as under:

We may make an observation here that the mention of the limited liability is in very small print at the back of consignment note which is not necessarily read by the consignor before he/she entered into the transaction of despatch of the consignment and hence it cannot be said to be a part of negotiation between the two parties.Further, whatever, may be the binding nature of the said clause in an action based on breach of contract we are of the view that it cannot restrict the liability of the courier for the consequences flowing out of its negligence and deficiency in the performance of the service undertaken by it.

 

In Skypak Courier Pvt. Ltd. Vs Consumer Education and Research Society, 1986-87, National Commission & SC on Consumer Cases 1788 (NS), the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held as under :

 

5.  

 

Thus, in the light of judgements cited above, the submission of OP with respect to the maximum liability of Rs.500/- as per terms and conditions printed on the receipt does not hold ground and defence of OP fails.

12. Further, it has been admitted in the para 12 of the Written Statement that the consignment was duly forwarded by taking all due care and caution but the same was misrouted and the moment it came to the knowledge of the respondent, the office of the respondent immediately rectified its mistake and delivered the consignment at correct address. Thus it is an admitted case in delay in delivery of the consignment.  It has been held in Air France V. Registan Exports reported at 2011 SCC Online NCDRC 250 wherein the Hon'ble National Commission held as follows:-

"16. The consignment was admittedly delayed and, therefore, it is but natural that the complainant was put to mental stress. The consignee had not received goods within a reasonable time and, therefore, must have nagged the complainant. The mercantile transactions require prompt delivery of the goods as per the order. The complainant might have suffered future loss of business, which cannot be quantified because the loss of goodwill was not specified by the complainant in terms of money. The State Commission, therefore, awarded a consolidated amount of compensation. The impugned judgement and order appears to be reasonable and proper. The belated delivery of the consignment can be regarded as deficiency in the service. We, therefore, do not find any substantial reason to interfere with the impugned judgement and order. The appeal is dismissed. No costs. The statutory amount be refunded to the appellant alongwith the accrual of interest, if any."

 

13. Though, OP has first time taken the defence in their written submission that the consignment was out for the delivery on 07/10/2017, but could not be delivered due to heavy rain which continued for several days; 08/10/2017 being Sunday was not a business day and ultimately the consignment was delivered on 10/10/2017.  The OP has not filed a single document in support of his defence.  Even if, the statement of OP is taken on the face of it that the delivery of the consignment was to be on 2^nd business day, which as per OP falls on 09/10/2017, despite that the consignment was delivered on 10/10/2017 at 16.22 hours, in that case also there is a delay on the part of OP in delivery of the consignment. 
14. The complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of loss suffered due to delay in delivery of the consignment by OP.  It is a settled law that the Complainant filed under CPA 2019, is meant for saving consumer from being exploited and it is not meant for windfall or making purchaser millionaire overnight. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is welfare legislation and is not meant to be a tool to wrong gains. The compensation sought by the Complainant is dis-appropriately high and the Complainant has not given any proper justification for the same. In our opinion, prayer for high compensation and cost without proper justification by the Complainant herein is not correct and is to be discouraged. For this, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta vs. Vodafone East Limited [FA 847/2017 decided on 05.10.2018].
15. Therefore, relying upon the above judgment and in the facts and circumstance of the present complaint we are of the opinion that the OP was deficient in providing services. Thus, we direct OP to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in services, inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of this order, in case of non compliance, OP shall be liable to pay an interest @7% p.a. on Rs.10,000/- from the date of order till realisation.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules.  Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya) Member

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar) President