DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Wing Commander SK Ahluwalia (Retd.), 256, Sector 33A, Chandigarh 160020

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.     DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., Regd. Office No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore 560047.

2.     DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., Regional Manager, SCO 267, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh.

3.     DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. (Booking & dispatch office), Franchisee, Shri Manish Joshi, Cabin # 4, SCO 96-97 (1^st Floor), Sector 34, Chandigarh..

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant  in person

                        Sh. G.L. Aggarwal, Counsel for OPs.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Wing Commander S.K. Ahluwalia (Retd.) has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

i)          To pay $ 69.95 paid for the purchase of the camera.

ii)        To either replace the camera or pay Rs.5,000/- for loss or damage suffered due to negligence of the opposite party.

iii)       To pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassment, mental agony & inconvenience:

iv)        To pay interest @ 12% on the amount of relief claimed.

v)         To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 28.8.2010 he handed over a parcel to the opposite parties containing a new imported camera (make Olympus) alongwith accessories and booklet for delivery to Rewa (MP).  The addressee/consignee was to leave Rewa for a few days after 30.8.2010.  The complainant told this fact to Shri Baldev Singh, who was the official present at the office of the opposite parties at the relevant time.  Sh. Baldev Singh assured him that the parcel would reach the addressee on 30.8.2010 by noon.

                   According to the complainant, thereafter in the afternoon of 30.8.2010, the complainant received a call from the consignee that the parcel has not been received.  The complainant immediately contacted the aforesaid Sh. Baldev Singh and requested him to get the parcel back at his office as the consignee was to leave Rewa for a few days.  The complainant thereafter personally visited the office of the opposite parties and met Sh. Baldev Singh.  It has been averred that after a lot of persuasion and efforts made by the complainant, he was told that the parcel had been delivered to someone on 2.9.2010.

                   According to the complainant when his relatives returned to Rewa (MP) in the second week of September 2010 he received a call informing him that someone gave them a package and when they opened the same they found that there was no camera in it.  The complainant thereafter contacted the dispatch office in Sector 34 and met Mr. Manish Joshi, Proprietor who assured to get back to him soon.  The complainant subsequently wrote letter dated 23.12.2010 to the Managing Director of the opposite parties.  In response, he received reply dated 29.10.2010 requesting him to await their investigation.  The complainant thereafter received a letter dated 15.1.2011 informing that they have no records since the matter was four months old.  According to the complainant the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. 

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In their joint written statement the opposite parties averred that a sealed consignment was booked by the complainant.  However, it has been pleaded that the complainant had not made any declaration of article booked in the consignment at the time of booking of the consignment.  It has further been pleaded that as per terms and conditions of booking, in case of any damages, loss and non delivery, if occurred during the course of business, the opposite parties are liable to  the extent of Rs.100/-.  According to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                           We have heard the complainant in person and the ld. Counsel for the opposite parties and have also gone through the documents on record.

5.                           Annexure C-1 is the receipt issued by the opposite parties to the complainant for booking of the consignment.  From the perusal of the same it is apparent that there is no mention on this receipt that the contents of the parcel were declared by the complainant nor is there anything on this receipt to show that even the value of the articles, contained in the parcel, was declared.  Except the self serving affidavit of the complainant and the letters issued by him to the opposite parties, there is nothing material on record to prove that the camera was sent in the parcel. 

6.                           On the other hand, the case of the opposite parties is that as the contents of the parcel were not declared, so they are not aware about the contents in the parcel so delivered at the destination. 

7.                           To our mind, if the parcel contained valuable articles, it was the duty of the consignor to declare the contents as well as the value thereof.   Hence, in the absence of such a declaration, to our mind, from the self serving affidavit, furnished by the complainant, and the letters issued by him, it is not proved that the parcel contained the camera. 

8.                           As per the complainant himself, the parcel reached the consignee, though it did not contain the camera.  To substantiate this fact the complainant was required to file the affidavit of the consignee.  He was the best person to tell as to what articles were found in the parcel.  But the complainant has failed to place on record such an affidavit. 

9.                           In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the complainant has failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

10.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

15.01.2013.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER