COMPLAINT FILED: 21.11.2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 25.03.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 25TH MARCH 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2716/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Siddharth Sinhe,<br /> Room 307, <br /> Venu Gopal Accommodation,<br /> Sri Sai Residency, <br /> #68, Thavarikere,<br /> Bangalore – 560 029,<br /> Karnataka.<br /> <br /> In Person<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.,<br /> No.3, Victoria Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 029,<br /> Karnataka.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri. P.K. Venkatesh<br /> Prasad<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint against the Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) seeking direction to pay the cost of the gift amounting to Rs.800/- and cost of courier Rs.260/- the cost of litigation and compensation in all Rs.4,500/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 2. The case of the complainant is that on 06.08.2009 he entrusted a gift package to OP branch to deliver the same to Gurgaon, Haryana. He was sending that Birthday gift to his father. It was a model of a ship; he was told that it would arrive on the next day i.e. on 7th August. The official who took gift wrote clearly on the package “HANDLE WITH CARE”. The package arrived one day late i.e. on 8th August; the gift was broken and the package was torn. When the complainant called the helpline he was asked the details as the consignment number, date and other details and he has sent an e-mail of his complaint to the ID of CSD Manager Mr. Mohan Raj. Further he has sent 3 e-mails, but has not received any response. He tried to call CSD Manager many times over the period of a week; Manager never picked up phone. The complainant filed written complaint addressed to the CSD Office on 6th September along with required documents. He has not received any response. Finally on 6th of October Mr. Mohan Raj finally talked and told that he would look into complaint and call back in 3 days. Complainant never received any call and when he tried to call him back, he switched off his cell phone. The gift is lot of emotional value, it was the first gift that he has sent to father ever since came to Bangalore. The complainant is entitled for the compensation for time, energy and money which he had spent and for the fact that is father’s birthday gift arrived broken the day after his birthday. Thus the complainant claimed the reliefs stated above.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed version admitting that the complainant had booked the gift pack to deliver the same to the Gurgaon, Hariyana. It is not to the knowledge of the OP what is the contents and the nature of the birthday gift to his father due to non-disclosing the same at the time of entrusting the consignment. The complainant has not mentioned on the consignment with instructions to be delivered immediately or with utmost urgent. OP has not promised that the consignment will reach on the very next day itself to the addressee. Some time due to inconvenience in the transportation it will be delayed in delivering the consignments. The consignment not delivered in particular time due to some inconvenience in transportation. The consignment was delivered in damaged condition because complainant has not properly packed at the time of entrusting the consignment. The complainant has to prove that he has made claim within 30 days of booking the consignment. The complainant has not subjected to mental agony and hardship for inconvenience and loss caused to him for delayed in delivering the consignment. The complainant has not declared the value of contents and importance of the consignment. In the absence of such declaration on the consignment OP cannot be held responsible to pay sum of Rs.4,500/- has claimed for the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. As per the terms and conditions of the foot receipt, the liability of the OP is limited to the extent of Rs.100/- only which is agreed upon by the parties at the time of undertaking to deliver the consignment. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint and limit the liability if any to the extent of Rs.100/-. <br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments; the complainant filed affidavit evidence. The Senior Manager of OP filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version. <br /> <br /> 5. Arguments heard on both sides. The points for our: <br /> <br /> Point No. 1:- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2:- Whether the complainant is entitled <br /> for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3:- To what Order?<br /> <br /> 6. We record our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Affirmative <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S <br /> <br /> 7. It is not at dispute that the complainant booked a gift article with OP branch office to send it to Gurgaon, Hariyana on 06-08-2009. The said gift package reached Gurgoan on 08-08-2009. The package was torned and gift article was damaged. The complainant was assured that the gift article would be delivered on the next day i.e., on 07-08-2009. In view of the assurance the complainant booked gift package with the OP Branch. From the affidavit evidence of the complainant it becomes clear that at the time of booking, the official of OP Branch office assured that the gift package will be delivered on the next day. Further on the gift package it was clearly mentioned that “HANDLE WITH CARE”. Inspite of all this it appears that the OP has not properly handled, as a result the gift package was torned and the gift article was damaged. <br /> <br /> 8. There is no merit in the contention of the OP that the liability is only to the extent of Rs.100/- as per the terms and conditions of the Foot Receipt. The consignment note copy produced by the complainant goes to show that he declared the value of article at Rs.800/- and the description of the consignment as “GIFT” and he had paid Rs.260/- as courier charges. In case the value of consignment was not declared, then OP could have been allowed to take a defence that only its liability is to an extent of Rs.100/-. The complainant has produced invoice for having purchased the said gift article at Rs.799/-. The Principles laid down in 2004 CTJ 4442 Desk to Desk Courier and Cargo Vs Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Limited cannot be made applicable to the fact of this case. In case the value of the consignment was not declared then the principles laid down in the said ruling could have made applicable. The copy of the complaint produced by the complainant reveals that on 05-09-2009 itself he has lodged the complaint before the CSD Manager, DTDC Courier, Bangalore with regard to gift article being not delivered in time and same being in a damaged condition, claimed the value of the article along with the courier charges and compensation. Thus it becomes clear that within 30 days the complainant has lodged the complaint before CSD Manager. Inspite of receipt of said complaint the claim of the complainant was not settled.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainant had sent the gift article as a birthday gift to his father and that was the first gift which he had sent after his coming over to Bangalore. He had lot of emotional value. He was put to mental agony and hardship, he had sent three e-mails to settle the matter, OP has not taken any care to settle the matter. In view of the same the complainant was compelled to approach this Forum. The complainant is first year college student at Christ University. He has to spend his time and energy apart from the money to claim the relief. Taking in to consideration of all these facts and circumstances, the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant is entitled for the value of the gift article Rs.800/-, courier charges of Rs.260/- and compensation of Rs.2,000/- apart from the litigation cost of Rs.500/-. Thus in all the complainant is entitled for Rs.3,560/- which is rounded off to Rs.3,600/-. Accordingly while answering point No.1 & 2 in Affirmative, we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> OP is directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,600/- to the complainant which includes cost of gift article, courier charges, compensation and litigation cost within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.<br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 25th day of March 2010.) <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> NRS<br />