West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/124/2012

N. Chiranjeevi - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

08 Feb 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                                                                                       

 Complaint case No.124/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 08/02/2013                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. K. S. Samajder.

                                                      MEMBER :  Mrs. Debi Sengupta.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxx

 

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Mr. M. L. Jana. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                          : Mr. S. K. Roy. Advocate.

                    N. Chiranjeevi, at North Inda Kamala Cabin, O.T. Road, P.O.-Inda, Kharagpur, P.S.-

                    Kharagpur(T), Dist-Paschim Medinipur.……………..Complainant.

                                                      - Vs. -

               1. DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd., 3, Victoria Road, Bangaluru-560047

               2. DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd., O.T. Road, Inda, P.O.- Inda, P.S.-Kharagpur(T), Dist-

                   Paschim  Medinipur………………….Ops.

                   The brief fact of the case is that on 4/2/12 the complainant sent a consignment through the office of the Op. no.2 under the D.T.D.C. PLUS service N.B.D. so as to reach the consignments to its destination on 6/2/12 (5/2/12 being Sunday). The complainant alleged that under the D.T.D.C. PLUS service N.B.D., the consignment should reach on the following day of booking for which higher amount had to be paid by the complainant. But the consignment did not reach its destination on the scheduled date for which the addressee had to come by air to Kolkata form Delhi spending Rs.13,000/- and he had to make further expenses for coming to Kharagpur. The complainant informed the matter to the Op. and they assured to meet the grievance of the complainant admitting the guilt. But ultimately the Op. did not do anything inspite of service of notice by the complainant through the Ld. Lawyer.    

               The Op. nos. 1 and 2 contested the case by filing a joint written objection admitting the hiring of service by the complainant for the purpose delivery of a consignment to Delhi. The specific contention of these Ops. was that due to some problem in their operation system the D.T.D.C. PLUS service could not provided to the complainant which was duly informed to the complainant and the consignment was delivered to the addressee on 8/2/12.

Contd………….P/2

- ( 2 ) -

                It is to be considered by us whether there was any deficiency in service or act of unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops. and whether the complainant is entitled to get reliefs claimed.

Decisions with reasons.

                It appears to be admitted position that the complainant had booked a consignment on 04/02/2012 with the Ops. under the D.T.D.C. PLUS service. It is not disputed in this case that under the said service the consignment should reach its destination on the following date of its booking. In this case since the consignment was booked on 04/02/2012, the same should have been delivered to the addressee on 06/02/12 (5/2/12 being Sunday). In the instant case the consignment was delivered to the addressee on 08/02/12. The reasons for such delay, as per the Ops. was due to some problem which arose relating to service. In our view for that reason the complainant should not suffer because he paid higher charges for availing of the quick service than the ordinary one. Therefore the deficiency in service on the part of Op. is abundantly clear if not unfair trade practice because knowing fully well about the problem the Ops. had booked the consignment under a particular scheme for which the complainant had to pay the higher rate than  the ordinary one.

               Therefore we are of the view that there has been deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. as well as they have adopted unfair trade practice for which they are held liable to compensate the complainant.

               Now, the complainant in this case has paid Rs.13,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards expenses allegedly incurred by him from Delhi to Kolkata and Kolkata to Kharagpur respectively. But we do not find such claim to be justified because no such appears to be incurred by the complainant. The complainant made a very feeble attempt to sustain such claim by showing some documents and arguing through his Ld. Lawyer during the time of hearing of this case to the effect that on verbal agreement the complainant incurred the expenditure of the consignee for his travel from Delhi to Kharagpur Via Kolkata. But in our well considered view this ground is not at all satisfactory in absence of any specific averment in this regard in the petition of complaint as well as documents showing expenditure borne by the complainant.

             Next, the complainant further claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. We find the high aspiration of the complainant in regard to the amount of compensation.   

             Having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case we find Justice shall be meted out properly if the complainant is awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards harassment mental agony and anxiety suffered by him apart from the litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- which seems to be adequate.

        Contd………….P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

                Accordingly the case succeeds on contest.

                              Ordered,

                                             that the case succeeds on contest. The Ops. are hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. The Ops. are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. Payment of both the amount should be made by the Ops. within 30 days from this date, in default, the total amount shall carry interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till realization of the entire amount.

              Parties be supplied with the copies of this Judgment free of cost. 

Dic. & Corrected by me

                                                         

              

         President                                 Member                                                President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                              Paschim Medinipur.