BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 23^rd DAY OF JUNE 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to pay him a sum of Rs.85,040/- for deficiency of service and for loss and hardship caused to him.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

An article was sent to Chenganur, Kerala State to the complainant by a relative through the OP courier service.  The relative of the complainant was convinced by the booking office at the Chenganur that the said article would be delivered to the complainant within 2 days from the date of booking.  The said consignment was containing certain documents pertaining to the landed property of the complainant.  Based on the assurance of the local office of OP in Chenganur the article was handed over to them with a request to deliver the same to the addressee at the earliest.  Any courier sent from state of Kerala hardly takes 2 days to reach the addressee at Bangalore.  However in this case the article could not reach the complainant within the time promised by the OPs.  After regular follow up and persuasion, the Thippasandra Branch of OP delivered the consignment to the complainant on sixth day.  That the said consignment contained certain important property documents and since did not reach the complainant on time the complainant who had entered into an oral agreement regarding the said property suffered huge loss because of the inordinate delay as the purchaser refused to adhere to the oral understanding.  The OP alone is responsible for the huge loss suffered by the complainant.

That the repeated enquires made by the complainant with their local office as well as regional office did not provide him any cause or reason for the delay in delivering the consignment.  Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint to the Regional Manager of OP at Bangalore on 24.09.2013.  However, OP did not respond to the said complaint.  That having felt deficiency of service on the part of the OP resulting in huge loss to him.  The complainant has approached this Forum with a prayer to direct the OP to pay him the service charges of Rs.40/-, compensation of Rs.75,000/- for the hardship, inconvenience and financial loss with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The OP in response to the notice served upon them entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief as under:

The OP Company is engaged in the business of Courier and Carriage of Cargo in India and abroad through its franchises and its branches.  That they had booked a consignment through one of the franchise of OP at Kerala on 06.09.2013 at 8.40 pm and the consignor has paid a sum of Rs.40/- towards transshipment charges.  That the consignor did not disclose the contents of the consignment at the time of booking and the services availed by the consignor was normal service by paying normal charges for the transshipment of the consignment.  Though the OP made known to the consignor regarding other mode of services viz., DTDC plus, DTDC blue and speed services available with them.  However the consignor decided to avail normal service as against the speed service.  The OP at no point of time has given assurance to the complainant that the consignment will be delivered to the consignee within 2 days from the date of booking under normal delivery/normal service.   That the consignment duly delivered to the consignee on 10.09.2013 at 1.00 PM.  At no point of time, the OP delayed the delivery of consignment to the consignee.  That the consignment has been delivered to the consignee within 2 days from the date of booking of the consignment.  The OP is not aware of the contents of the said consignment and consignor also did not disclose the contents at the time of booking.  The OP is no where concerned to the alleged loss suffered by the complainant.  The complainant has not brought to the notice of the OP regarding consequences of breach or damages that the complainant is likely to suffer in case of non delivery or delayed delivery of the consignment.  That in absence of any such declaration the OP is not liable to pay any amount towards loss or damages assessed by the complainant.  The OP has given best service to the complainant and there is no any deficiency of service on their part.

For the reasons stated above, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

4. On being called upon, the complainant submitted the evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  The OP in support of the averments made in the version got filed the affidavit evidence of one Mr.T.S Rama Murthy, Zonal Admin Manager and Regional HR Manager.  The complainant has filed certain documents in support of the allegations made in the complaint.    

5. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, averments made in the version, sworn testimony of both parties.  Also perused the documents filed by the complainant and other materials placed on record.

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

8.  Admittedly a relative of complainant booked a consignment with OP at Chenganur in Kerala for its delivery to complainant at Bangalore.  The said consignment has been booked on 06.09.2013 at 8.40 PM by paying Rs.40/- towards transshipment charges.  Complainant alleges that the local office of OP at Chenganur promised his relative that the consignment would be delivered within 2 days from the date of booking.  Therefore, the said consignment was handed over to the branch of OP at Chenganur.  Complainant further alleges that though the OP promised to deliver the consignment within 2 days but the same did not reach within 2 days but it was delivered only on 10.09.2013.  Complainant alleges that, there is inordinate delay in delivery of the consignment which has resulted into huge financial loss to him.  The complainant claims that, there were important documents in the said consignment and since the consignment did not reach him on time, the purchaser of the property backed up and did not adhere to the oral agreement thereby causing him huge financial loss.

9. The complainant did not produce the receipt issued by the OP, to his relative at Chenganur to find out as to the terms and conditions regarding the transshipment of the consignment.  The complainant also did not produce any credible evidence on record to substantiate the contention that the local office of OP at Chenganur promised to deliver the consignment within 2 days from the date of booking.  Except the self serving testimony of OP there is nothing to record of believe that the local office of OP at Chenganur promised to deliver the consignment within 2 days.

10. Admittedly the complainant has not disclosed the contents of the consignment and has also not disclosed as to the consequences that would follow due to delayed delivery of consignment, at the time of booking.  Moreover the relative of the complainant also has not availed the speedy services available with OP, if at all it was very essential to deliver the consignment within 2 days.  Complainant did not deny in his evidence as to the speedy service available with OP.  The complainant also did not explain as to why the speed services available with OP was not availed for urgent delivery of the consignment.

11. The consignment has been booked on 06.09.2013 at 8.40 PM and the same has been delivered to the complainant on 10.09.2013 at 1.00 PM.  We don’t find any ‘inordinate’ delay as alleged by the complainant in delivery of the consignment.  The consignment has been delivered within 4 days from the date of booking.  Therefore, we are not able to agree with the complainant that there is inordinate delay in delivery of the consignment.

12. The complainant did not mention specifically as to the nature of the documents which were sent to him in the said consignment.  He also did not specifically mention as to what kind of transactions he had entered with anybody and what exact loss he suffered due to alleged delay in delivery of the consignment.  Except the self serving statement of the complainant there is no material on record to believe that the complainant has suffered any financial loss due to the alleged delay in delivery of the consignment.  We don’t have any material on record to believe that, the complainant has suffered any financial loss or inconvenience or hardship due to the alleged delayed delivery of consignment.  In our considered opinion the complainant has failed to establish deficiency of service on the part of OP.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

13. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency. 

14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is dismissed.  The parties to bear their own costs.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 23^rd day of June 2016)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 06.03.2014.

1. Sri. M.V Pillai.

Document produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 24.03.2014.

1. Sri.T.S Rama Murthy.

 Document produced by the Opposite party - Nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln*