BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER
C.C. No. 75/2019 (Filed on 26.03.2019)
ORDER DATED: 26.06.2024
Complainant:
Jayaprakash M.S., Ayyappas, Koliyoor, Muttacaud P.O., Thiruvananthapuram-695 523.
(Party in person)
Opposite party:
Customer Relationship Manager, DTDC Courier, Regd. Office: DTDC House, No. 3, Victoria Road, Bengaluru-560 047.
(By Advs. Binu Mathew & S. Reghukumar)
ORDER
SRI. P. V. JAYARAJAN: PRESIDENT
This complaint is filed under Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration. After hearing the matter this Commission passed an order as follows:
2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party to appear before this Commission on 21.10.2019. The opposite party entered appearance and filed written version denying the allegations raised by the complainant.
3. The case of the complainant in short is that during his visit to New Delhi in the month of September 2018, he had purchased three packets of art designed tiles by paying Rs. 12,000/-. For the convenience of transportation, the complainant entrusted the said articles with the opposite party courier service by paying Rs. 6,575/- being the courier charge. According to the complainant, while reaching the consignment at the delivery point, it was observed that the entire three boxes were totally in a broken condition. Hence the complainant refused to accept the same. This fact was immediately informed to the opposite party DTDC Courier, Thiruvananthapuram and Bangalore office, but they have not cared to consider the complaint raised by the complainant. Hence the complainant made a written complaint over e-mail for which there was no response from the side of the opposite party. Finally, the complainant sent a speed post to the opposite party for which also there was no response. According to the complainant, the irresponsible attitude from the side of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant submits that he has paid Rs. 6,575/- to the opposite party as courier charges, only for reaching the consignment safe at the delivery point. But to the surprise of the complainant the entire product was totally broken and became unusable. Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievances.
4. The opposite party filed written version raising serious contentions. The main contention raised by the opposite party is that the consignor/complainant has not declared the details of the consignment or its value at the time of booking the same for carriage with the booking office of the opposite party. The opposite party further contended that no additional payments like risk surcharge for carriage of any alleged valuables were paid to the opposite party. The complainant had not provided any proof regarding the contents of the consignment with the booking office at the time of booking the consignment at the DTDC office, New Delhi. The opposite party denies that the value of the consignment is Rs. 12,000/- as alleged by the complainant. According to the opposite party, the consignment was delivered in the same packed condition as at the time of booking without any damage as alleged by the complainant. But the complainant/consignor has refused to take delivery of the consignment on the date of delivery. The opposite party further contended that if the consignment contained any valuable items, the consignor ought to have declared the same at the time of booking and paid the additional amounts for carriage to the courier to carry the same at the carrier’s risk or to arrange for insurance by himself to cover the loss if any. Another contention raised by the opposite party is that the opposite party collect consignments for carriage as per the terms and conditions that are specifically mentioned on the overleaf of the consignment note. It is clearly mentioned that in the event of damage or loss to the goods, the liability of the opposite party under the contract between the parties is limited to Rs. 100/- or the amount as mentioned under the terms and conditions written on the overleaf of the consignment note which is in the custody of the complainant. Unless the sender declares a higher value and also pays the applicable risk surcharge thereof, the liability of the courier service is limited to Rs. 100/- only. According to the opposite party, there is no merit or bonafide in filing this complaint and there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 series from the side of the complainant. Though the opposite party filed written version, they failed to file affidavit or documents to substantiate their contentions. Hence there is no documentary evidence from the side of the opposite party.
6. Issues to be considered are:
- Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the complaint?
- Order as to costs?
7. Issues (i) to (iii): Heard. Perused the affidavit, documents and records. To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P3 series were produced and marked. Ext. P1 is the copy of the e-mail complaint submitted by the complainant before the opposite party. Ext. P2 is the subsequent reminder issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. P3 series are the receipts issued by the opposite party (3 in Nos.) in favour of the complainant. Ext. P1 proves that the complainant has raised complaint before the opposite party in respect of the damages caused to the consignment. In Ext. P1 the complainant states that the value of the contents of the consignment is Rs. 12,000/- and that for transporting the consignment the complainant has paid Rs. 6,575/-. Ext. P2 is a reminder issued by the complainant to the opposite party after four months from the date of the first complaint. Ext. P2 shows that till January 14, 2019 the grievance of the complainant was not properly redressed by the opposite party. Ext. P3 series prove that the consignment was sent through the opposite party by the complainant and it also proves that he has paid a sum of Rs. 6,575/- towards consideration for availing the service rendered by the opposite party. As the opposite party failed to file affidavit or documents to substantiate the contentions raised in their written version, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged. There is no piece of evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party has raised serious contentions through their written version, but failed to substantiate those contentions by adducing supporting evidence. It is a well settled legal proposition that pleadings are not evidence and that a party who wants to prove anything as made out in his/her pleadings has to give evidence to prove his/her assertions. Here in this case the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove the contentions raised in the written version. Hence we find that the opposite party failed to substantiate the contentions raised in the written version. One of the main contentions raised by the opposite party is that as per the terms and conditions on the overleaf of the consignment note, there was some conditions which restricts their liability to Rs. 100/-. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission for short) in Osuri Devendra Phanikar Vs. Desk to Desk Couriers and Cargo Ltd., it was held that since the consignment note is not signed by the complainant and the terms and conditions on the reverse of it are in small print which were not explained to him, as such the same would not be applicable upon him. Here in this case the opposite party has not produced any copy of the consignment note which is signed by the complainant and hence as per the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission, the conditions if any on the reverse side of the consignment note is not applicable to the complainant. In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we accept the case of the complainant that the cost of the consignment is Rs. 12,000/- and that he has paid Rs. 6,575/- towards the courier charges. We reject the contention of the opposite party to the effect that the complainant liable to the terms and conditions mentioned on the overleaf of the consignment note on the ground that the complainant has not signed on it. By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Exts. P1 to P3 series documents, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite party. From the available evidence before this Commission and in the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite party, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. It is also evident from the available evidence before this Commission that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite party. As the mental agony and financial loss to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. In view of the above discussion, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 12,000/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand only) being cost of the consignment and Rs. 6,575/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Five only) being the courier charges along with Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) as compensation and Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) being the costs of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance or realization.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 26th day of June 2024.
Sd/-
P.V.JAYARAJAN : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
PREETHA G. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
VIJU V.R : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 75/2019
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW1 - Jayaprakash M.S.
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of e-mail complaint submitted by the complainant
P2 - Reminder issued by complainant to opposite party dated 14.01.2019
P3 - Copy of receipt issued by opposite party
P3(a) - Copy of receipt issued by opposite party
P3(b) - Copy of receipt issued by opposite party
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
