Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/11/1346

I.T.SOLUTIONS - Complainant(s)

Versus

/ DTDC COURIER - Opp.Party(s)

22 Sep 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL                          

                                   

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1346 OF 2011

(Arising out of order dated 08.08.2011 passed in C. C. No.471/2010 by District Commission, Jabalpur)

 

I. T. SOLUTIONS,

THROUGH PROPRIETOR SANJEEV CHOUBEY,

S/O LATE SHRI LAKSHMI PRASAD CHOUBEY,

R/O 1416 AZAD NAGAR, BAL SAGAR,

BEHIND MEDICAL COLLEGE,

JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                                           ….       APPELLANT.

 

                   Versus

 

D. T. D. C. COURIER,

THROUGH LOCAL MANAGER,

5, SHOPPING CENTER,

SHRI KRISHNA TALKIES ROAD,

JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                                              ….    RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                      :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA         :   MEMBER

                                  

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                        Shri Arun Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

                Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.              

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 22.09.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:

                        This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 08.08.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.471/2010 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed.

-2-

2.                The case of the complainant/appellant in brief is such that the complainant is engaged in mobile servicing for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. On 23.04.2009 he booked a consignment containing mobiles with the opposite party/respondent to be delivered Okhala, New Delhi after making payment of Rs.100/- for the same. It is submitted that contents of the consignment were declared to the opposite party/respondent. It is alleged that the said consignment was not delivered to its destination. On 02.07.2009, the complaint being made, the opposite party assured to pay Rs.27,800/- the cost of consignment. The complainant/appellant therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party seeking relief of Rs.27,800/- along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs.

3.                The opposite party/respondent admitted the fact that the complainant booked a consignment no.T32600279 on 23.04.2009 but denied that the complainant declared the contents of the consignment to the opposite party. It is submitted that consignment was delivered to the recipient on 27.04.2009 by Annexure R-1. It was also denied that the opposite party had ever accepted the claim of Rs.27,800/-. It is further submitted that for the first time after two and half months i.e. on 02.07.2009 the complainant complained regarding non-delivery of consignment and

-3-

prior to that no dispute was raised in this regard, whereas it has to be raised within 30 days. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission after hearing parties and on appreciation of evidence available on record dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party.

5.                Heard. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the opposite party despite taking consideration did not deliver the consignment booked by the complainant to its destination. On repeated requests and personal communication, it was assured that the consignment will be delivered shortly but when the consignment was not delivered, a written complaint (C-3) was given to the opposite party, who assured payment of Rs.27,800/-. He further argued the District Commission failed to appreciate this fact that if the delivery could have been made on 27.04.2009, the opposite party will not receive the letter of the complainant on 02.07.2009. The complainant is doing servicing of mobile sets and often send the mobile sets through courier. The District Commission also failed to consider this aspect that the R-1 filed by the opposite party appears suspicious which is prepared later just to escape from the liability. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order

 

-4-

deserves to be set-aside and appeal be allowed. The amount claimed in the complaint with interest be ordered to be paid by the opposite party.

7.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/respondent argued that the opposite party delivered the consignment booked by the complainant to its destination on 27.04.2009 which is evident from R-1. He further argued that the complainant has not come with clean hands as he made a complaint after about two months of its booking. The opposite never assured regarding payment of Rs.27,800/-. He further argued that the District Commission after appreciation of evidence rightly passed the impugned order. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

8.                On going through the record, we find that the complainant booked a consignment on 23.04.2009 with the opposite party to be delivered Okhala, New Delhi which is evident from Annexure C-1. Annexure C-2 is the document given by the complainant showing contents of the consignment, however, the opposite party denied this document. The complainant has filed an another document C-3 by which he asked to pay the cost of consignment Rs.27,800/- from the opposite party, which was duly received by the opposite party on 02.07.2009.

9.                As per the opposite party if the consignment was delivered to its destination the complainant ought not to have receive the claim of Rs.27,800/- (C-3). When the dispute is regarding non-delivery of the

-5-

consignment, it is the duty of the opposite party to prove that the consignment was delivered to its destination. The opposite party tried to prove by the document R-1, that the consignment was delivered on 27.04.2009. However, on going through the said document R-1, we find that the date of booking was mentioned as April 24, 2009 whereas the opposite party admitted the document C-1 by which the consignment was booked, in which date of booking was mentioned as 23.04.2009. Similarly in the R-1 in the head of status it was shown Delivered at Delhi, whereas the consignment was to delivered at Okhala Phase-I, New Delhi. It is also not clear from the said document that to whom the said consignment was delivered, therefore we are of a considered view that this document cannot be relied.

10.              In support of contention of the opposite party that the consignment was delivered, the opposite party did not file any chart regarding delivery which used to take by delivery man and who used to take signatures of the recipient.  The opposite party also failed to file affidavit of the concerned delivery boy or the branch manager of the said branch, where delivery of the consignment was to be made. In such circumstances, we find that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in not delivering the consignment entrusted to it for delivery to its destination.

 

-6-

11.              So far as the amount of compensation as claimed by the complainant for a sum of Rs.27,800/- is concerned, we find that the complainant did not file any sufficient evidence to substantiate that he suffered loss of Rs.27,800/- for non-delivery of consignment.  However, we find that for the inconvenience caused to the complainant, he should be compensated. In the interest of justice compensation of Rs.10,000/- will meet the ends of justice. 

12.              In view of the above discussion we find that the District Commission has committed gross error in dismissing the complaint. Accordingly, we set-aside the impugned order.

13.              In view of the aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. Consequently, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party/respondent is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till payment. The opposite party/respondent is also directed to pay costs of both the complaint and this appeal amounting to Rs.5,000/- to the complainant/appellant within a period of one month.

 

               (A. K. Tiwari)                     (D. K. Shrivastava)     

                 Presiding Member                       Member