Kerala

Trissur

CC/06/499

Sijo Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Bitto.N.L.

30 Aug 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
Ayyanthole , Thrissur
consumer case(CC) No. CC/06/499

Sijo Joseph
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.
Akme Enterprises
DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Padmini Sudheesh 2. Rajani P.S.

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
1. Sijo Joseph

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. 2. Akme Enterprises 3. DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
1. Bitto.N.L.

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President The complainant is the Proprietor of M/s. Green Hopper, Kallettumkara and doing the business of manufacturing of Pulvariser, Grills and Gates for livelihood. Petitioner purchased three items of ‘Stright Grinder Armatures worth Rs.7500/- and due to some technical reason, those armatures were not suit for the purpose. Hence on 18/2/06 had forwarded back those items to Everest Machine tools, Coimbatore by DTDC through 2nd respondent and receipt No.005466873 was issued by 2nd respondent. It was packed well and the contents was divulged and declared and made known to DTDC. On receipt of consideration of Rs.140/- DTDC had undertook the transmission of the goods. But the items were not delivered by DTDC to the addressee. It is learnt that due to miscarriage and mishandling the property was lost and resulted non delivery. DTDC had committed deficiency in service and dereliction of duty, which resulted in loss of Rs.7500/-. Lawyer notice sent, but no reply and no remedy. 2. The notice from the Forum is accepted by all the respondents, but remained absent and set exparte. 3. To prove the case the complainant has filed affidavit and documents which are marked as Exhibits P1 to P3 and P4 series and P5 series. 4. According to the complainant he is entitled for the goods or the value of goods with interest @ 12% from 18/2/06, service charge, cost and compensation. 5. There is no evidence to the contrary. 6. In the result complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to return Rs.7500/- (Rupees Seven thousand and five hundred only) as the value of goods with interest @ 12% from 18/2/06 till realization. Respondents are further directed to return the service charge of Rs.140/- (Rupees One hundred and forty only)and Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards costs. Comply the order within one month. Dictated to the Confdl. Asst., transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of August 2008.




......................Padmini Sudheesh
......................Rajani P.S.