DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 33 of 30.1.2018

                                      Decided on:  4.10.2018

Parveen Kumar aged 29 years son of Sh.Babban Ram, resident of c/o Ashok Kumar, H.No.128, Ganesh Nagar, Rajpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       DTDC Courier & Cargo limited, Kalka Road, Near By Pass, Opposite PNB, Rajpura, District Patiala, through its Manager.

2.       DTDC Courier Express Limited, Head office at Customer Service, H.No.3, Victoria Road, Karnatka, Banglore,560047, through its Director.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member                                               

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Parveen Kumar, complainant in person.

                                      None for the OPs .                                     

 ORDER

                                    SH. KANWALJEET SINGH,  MEMBER

1. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant  purchased a mobile hand set phone Redmi-Y-1,  for an amount of Rs.6999/-to be sent to his wife as gift,who is  residing in U.P.After its purchase, the complainant sent the mobile hand set through DTDC Courier Service, Branch at Rajpura, to the brother of his father-in-law Sh.Inderjeet Prashad at Loha Patti, Balthara Road, Ballian, U.P.After receiving the insurance amount of Rs.710/-, in the presence of the complainant, the mobile hand set was packed in polythene bag with seal No.8212690 on 27.11.2017 and OP no.2 issued the receipt to the complainant.
2. The OPs failed to deliver the product to Sh.Inderjeet Prashad and from the delivered packet only charger,one slip and one mobile bag was recovered in the presence of the person concerned and mobile phone hand set was not in the packet. Thereafter complainant approached OP no.2 and informed that mobile phone hand set which was sent through DTDC courier service under insurance after charging the insurance premium has not been delivered to the person to who the was sent. No positive reply was received by the complainant from the OPs.After that, complainant sent e-mail to the head office of the DTDC but all in vain.So the complainant is entitled to the damages of Rs.50,000/- and is entitled for his mobile phone hand set make Redmi Y1Lite and prayed that the complaint may kindly be accepted and the OPs may kindly be directed to return the mobile hand set alongwith damages.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through their counsel and filed joint written version. Preliminary objections have been taken that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is Express Provision, provided in the terms and conditions, mentioned on the overleaf of the consignment note and also the complainant  has not made the claim within time and that the complaint is not maintainable.
4. On merits, it is stated that the parcel containing the mobile set was delivered in the same condition as it was at the time of booking.The OPs did not know the condition of the hand set at the time of booking the parcel because hand set was not put in the parcel in the presence of the representative of the OPs. The OPs have nothing do to with the condition of the mobile set. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments of the complainant, the OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his affidavit, copies of courier envelop,Exs.C1, C2,C3,C4, affidavit, Ex.C5,copy of courier receipt,Ex.C6, copy of courier receipt,Ex.C7,copy of tax invoice, Ex.C8, copy of extract of google, purchasing the mobile hand set, Ex.C9,copy of letter,Ex.C10 and closed the evidence.
6. It  is suffice to note here that the OPs after availing ample opportunities failed to lead any evidence and the evidence of OPs was closed by order vide order dated 26.9.2018.
7. We have heard the complainant and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. During arguments the contention of the complainant is similar to his respective pleadings so no need to reiterate the same.
9. Further it is revealed from the OPs pleadings that OPs did not know the condition of the mobile hand set at the time of booking the parcel. OPs plea is not believable. Ex.C7 is crystal clear that OPs issued a receipt after received the service charges of Rs.710/- from the complainant. From this angle OPs are liable to commit deficiency in service towards the complainant.
10. As per Ex.C1 to C10, it is prima facie proved that OPs are liable to pay the loss occurred on the part of negligence act of OPs.
11. Resultantly ,we partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of mobile hand set in question and further directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as compensation. The entire compliance shall be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
12.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:4.10.2018                

                                           KANWALJEET SINGH  NEELAM GUPTA

                                                MEMBER                         MEMBER