D.O.F:10/3/15

D.O.O:28/5/16

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                       CC.NO.55/15

                             Dated this, the 28th   day of  May  2016

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI            : PRESIDENT

SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL    : MEMBER 

Krishnan.P.V, Sub Treasury Officer RTD

Nishantham , Aminhikode, Cheruvathur,  Kasaragod.                         Complainant

DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd,  Regd office,

DTDC House, No.3 Victoria Road, Bangaluru,560047,

Karnataka.

2. P.K.Thampan,  authorised chanel partner,

DTDC Courier & Cargo, VS complex, Buildg,

Rly station Road, Cheruvathur,671313. Kasaragod.                                 :Opposite parties

Adv.Binu Mathew, Adv.K.Abdul Nasir)

                                                           ORDER

SMT.P.RAMADEVI    : PRESIDENT

  The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

  That the complainant’s  daughter Veena  Binny had booked an urgent document with Ist opposite party, the DTDC courier cargo Ltd,Bangalore on 31/1/15 for delivering the document to the complainant  on or before 3/2/15.  The Ist opposite party promised that the  document  will be delivered as the next day itself and charged Rs.175/- for express delivery.  The document was  to submit to the  LIC authorities on or before 3/2/15 and the complainant  has not received the document before 3/2/15 and he could not produce the document before the LIC  and thereby he sustained a loss of Rs.1500/- since he cannot fulfill the  contract with the LIC authorities.  The document was received on 5/2/15 at 5.30 p.m and that too was forced to collect  it from the office of 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant collected the document from the  office of the 2^nd opposite party by spending Rs.70/- as auto charge.  Hence the  complaint is filed against opposite parties alleging deficiency in service.

   On service of notice  both  opposite parties  entered in appearance.  Ist opposite party appeared through counsel and 2^nd opposite party present in person and filed version.  Ist opposite party  failed to file the written version since ample opportunities given to them for filing version.

   In the version 2^nd opposite party admitted that he received the consignment on  5/2/15  at 4.p.m and also admits that he asked the complainant to come and collect the consignment.  The 2^nd opposite party also admits that complainant collected the consignment from their office by spending Rs.70/- as auto charge.  The 2^nd opposite party submits that he will not get the auto charge from the company and that is why he is not making  home delivery.   According to the complainant he was not aware that the courier  is having an important documents of  complainant  and also he is not aware that the Ist opposite party promised to deliver the same on or before  3/2/15.  Here according to  complainant, there is  no deficiency  on the  part of 2^nd opposite party and 2^nd opposite party  is only a franchise of 1^st opposite party  and the  complainant against   him is liable to  be dismissed.

   On going  through the entire facts on  records the following issues raised for consideration.

1. Is there any  deficiency  in service  on the side of opposite parties?

2. If so  what is  the relief  as cost and compensation?

    Here the complainant   filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 & A2 marked.   There is no evidence  on the side of opposite party No.2.   Heard the complaint.

     The specific case of the complainant is that there is delay in delivering the consignment he  could loss Rs.1500/- and also  caused mental agony.  On perusal of Ext.A1 it  shows  that the consignment was booked on 31/1/15 and the  delivery was taken on 5/2/16.  Here according to 2^nd opposite party he received the  consignment on 5/2/15 at 4.p.m.  Delay on delivery of courier is deficiency in service,  There  is no contra evidence on the side of  1^st opposite party.  2^nd opposite party taken a contention that he is not liable to make home delivery of the  consignment  is unsustainable.  He is liable to make home  delivery unless there is an agreement between the complainant and  the courier company.  Here there is no agreement between the company and the complainant that the complainant has to collect the consignment from the franchise.  No contra evidence  before the  forum.  Here the delay in delivey  and non delivery to  home  amounts to deficiency in service.  2^nd opposite party is only a franchise or agent of ist opposite party , the  1^st opposite party is  vicariously liable .   Moreover 2^nd opposite party is not liable for the delay.  He received the documents on 5/2/16.  Considering the entire facts we are of the view that  there is deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties and the 1^st opposite party is liable for the same.

    Therefore the complaint is allowed directing the 1^st opposite party to pay Rs.1500/- being the loss sustained  and  further directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards  compensation for mental agony  and Rs.2000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the  complainant.  2^nd opposite party is exonerated from  the liabilities.  Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Exts.

A1-copy of receipt

A2- copy of visiting  card of OP

MEMBER                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

Eva