Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

98/2012

Manoj Sreekumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Courier - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.Marudhachalamurthy

26 Jul 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 17.04.2012

                                                                          Date of Order : 26.07.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.98 /2012

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY 2018

                                 

Manoj Sreekumar,

S/o. Mr. C. Sreekumar,

No.8, Dev Apartments,

No.11, Malaviya Avenue,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.                                             .. Complainant.                                                        

 

    ..Versus..

 

1. The Senior Manager,

DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited,

DTDC House,

No.3, Victoria Road,

Bangalore – 560 047,

Karnataka.

 

2. The Manager,

DTDC Courier & Cargo,

No.136, Velachery Main Road,

Little Mount,

Saidapet,

Chennai – 600 015.   

 

3. The Manager,

DTDC Courier,

New No.141, Shop No.9,

LB Road, Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.                                           ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant           :  M/s. R. Marudhachalamurthy &

                                                      another

Counsel for opposite parties    :  M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he is a Guitarist came to know that ‘Rock in India” Music Event performed a world famous American Rock Group namely METALLICA scheduled on 30.10.2011 at Bangalore.  The complainant further submits that he booked a ticket through website to attend the event on payment of Rs.2,750/- and Rs.75/- towards shipment/ courier charges.  The ticket has been couriered by the opposite party on 15.10.2011 and the same should be delivered to the complainant within 3 to 5 days.  Since the consignment has not reached the complainant within the expected period of 3 to 5 days, the complainant contacted the opposite parties 1 to 3 in different occasions through phone not materialized and ended in vain.  Hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice dated:30.11.2011 with clear details regarding deficiency in service and claiming compensation. The 2^nd opposite party sent a reply dated:29.12.2011 with untenable contentions. Further the complainant submits that he is residing in the said address for the past 25 years and there is no chance of returning the consignment.  Further the complainant submits that neither the consignment reached the complainant nor it is returned to the sender.  If it is returned to the sender, due acknowledgment shall be produced.  Further the complainant submits that as per the track report, the consignment was delivered only on 30.11.2011.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony which leads to deficiency in service.   Hence the complaint is filed.

 2.    The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite parties state that there is neither deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice in this case and never caused any mental agony.  The opposite parties submit that it should be proved only by the complainant that he is a Guitarist wanted to attend an International Rock Festival namely “Rock in India” on 30.10.2011 held in Bangalore and booked online tickets on 19.09.2011 paying a sum of Rs.2,750/-+ Rs.75/- towards courier charges was despatched to his address on 15.10.2011 through the opposite parties’ courier.   Further the opposite parties state that the consignor who booked the consignment did not disclose the materials / documents inside the cover.   Further the opposite parties state that as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the consignment note that ‘the liability of the opposite party is strictly limited to Rs.100/- for loss or misdelivery of shipment unless, the value has been declared’.  Further the opposite parties state that the opposite parties never assured that the consignment would reach within any prescribed time.   Further the opposite parties state that if the address of the consignee / consignor is incomplete or insufficient, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for such non delivery.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   In order to prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.     The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation including the value of the impugned ticket with cost of Rs.20,000/- as prayed for?

5.     On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard both parties’ Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he is a Guitarist came to know that ‘Rock in India” Music Event performed a world famous American Rock Group namely METALLICA scheduled on 30.10.2011 at Bangalore.  The complainant further contended that he booked a ticket through website to attend the event on payment of Rs.2,750/- and Rs.75/- towards shipment / courier charges as per Ex.A1.  The ticket has been couriered by the opposite party on 15.10.2011 and the same should be delivered to the complainant within 3 to 5 days.  Ex.A3 is the consignment track details.  Since the consignment has not reached the complainant within the expected period of 3 to 5 days, the complainant contacted the opposite parties 1 to 3 in different occasions through phone not materialized and ended in vain.  Hence the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice as per Ex.A2 with clear details regarding deficiency in service and claiming compensation. The opposite parties sent a reply as per Ex.A4 with untenable contentions. The complainant filed interrogatories by way of questionnaire for which, the opposite parties submitted their reply also.

6.     The opposite parties in its reply for question Nos.7 & 8, it is  clearly admitted that the procedure followed at the time of checking which reads as follows:

“7. What is the usual procedure that will be followed in all your courier office at the time of booking consignment?

Checking the Pin code, Weight of the Article / Consignment booked and the nature of contents handed over for dispatch.

8. What is the usual procedure that will be followed at that time of delivery consignment?

We have to take signature, seal (only if the consignee is a corporate body / business establishment) and contact number of consignee.

In this case, the opposite parties has not produced any such acknowledgments except the track report Ex.B2. 

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that he is residing in the said address for the past 25 years and there is no chance of returning the consignment with an allegation of insufficient address.  But the complainant has not produced any record for such long habitation in the said address.  Further the contention of the complainant is that neither the consignment reached the complainant nor it is returned to the sender.  If it is returned to the sender, due acknowledgment shall be produced.  In this case the opposite parties has not produced any acknowledgement as admitted in the reply to the questionnaire.  Further the contention of the complainant is that as per the track report, the consignment was delivered only on 30.11.2011.  For that also, no record produced.  The opposite parties has not explained the reason for the alleged inordinate delay in returning the consignment.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation for loss of consignment including the value of the ticket. 

8.     The contention of the opposite parties is that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in this case and not caused any mental agony.  The allegation that the complainant is a Guitarist wanted to attend an International Rock Festival namely “Rock in India” on 30.10.2011 held in Bangalore and booked online tickets on 19.09.2011 paying a sum of Rs.2,750/-+ Rs.75/- towards courier charges was despatched to his address on 15.10.2011 through the opposite parties’ courier service as per Ex.A1 should be proved by the complainant.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the consignor who booked the consignment did not disclose the materials / documents inside the cover.   As per Ex.B1, the contents shall be disclosed.  In this case, the complainant has not disclosed the contents and its value.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that as per Ex.B1, condition No.15 ‘the liability of the opposite party is strictly limited to Rs.100/- for loss or misdelivery of shipment unless, the value has been declared’.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the opposite parties never assured that the consignment would reach within any prescribed time.   But it is admitted by the opposite parties that they can keep the records only for 3 months.  In this case, the consignment was returned on 30.11.2011 that is after 45 days.  The reason for such inordinate delay has not been explained by the opposite parties.   The opposite parties also has not whispered how and where the consignment was locked for such long period of 45 days proves the deficiency in service.  

9.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that if the address of the consignee / consignor is incomplete or insufficient, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible for such non delivery.  In this case, no such question arise because in the same address the consignment reached after 45 days. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant consigned the ticket on 15.10.2011 which was not at all reached to the complainant and was returned to the consignor after 45 days proves the deficiency in service resulting mental agony.  Hence this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.   

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 26^th day of July 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	12.09.2011 to 10.10.2011	Copy of complainant’s credit card statement
Ex.A2	30.11.2011	Copy of legal notice to the opposite parties
Ex.A3	30.11.2011	Copy of the consignment tracker result
Ex.A4	29.12.2011	Copy of reply notice given by the 2nd opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1		Copy of Terms and Conditions on Consignment Note
Ex.B2	Oct 2011 to Nov 2011	Copy of Track details of the consignment

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT