Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/759/2014

M.R. Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Deepak Aggarwal

09 Jul 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/759/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	20/11/2014
Date   of   Decision	:	09/07/2015

 

 

 

 

 

M.R. Gupta, C-76, Kendriya Vihar, Sector 48-B, Chandigarh– 160047.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

(1)  DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, Head Office: 3, Victoria Road, Bangalore – 560047, through its Director.

 

(2)  Branch Head, DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, SCO 267, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh – 160036.

 

…… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

MRS. SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate.
For OPs	:	Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

 

          The facts which are necessary for the adjudication of the present Complaint are conceptualized hereinafter. The Complainant hired the services of Opposite Party No.2 and sent certain important documents to Essel Tower Maintenance Pvt. Limited, Main M.G. Road, Gurgaon vide CNN No.Z87851193 dated 22.04.2013. However, when the documents were not delivered by them to the consignee, Complainant lodged a Complaint with the Opposite Parties on 7.5.2013, whereupon the Opposite Parties informed the Complainant vide their e-mail dated 12.6.2013 that the consignment was returned to their booking office on 30.4.2013. It has been averred that the documents were required to reach its designated place on 4.5.2013 but they did not and resultantly, Complainant had to travel to Gurgaon to convince the consignee that the documents were duly dispatched through courier on earlier occasion and had to cut a sorry figure, which has caused undue mental agony and harassment to the Complainant. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint.

 

2.     Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties, seeking their version of the case.

 

3.     Opposite Parties, in their written version, admitted that a parcel was sent vide CNN No.Z87851193 and that the consignment was returned to the booking office on 30.4.2013. It has been denied that consignment was supposed to be delivered on 4.5.2014. The Complainant availed the Scheme of 48 hrs. delivery knowing pros and cons of the same. It has been pleaded that the Complainant was informed that the parcel, which was booked, is returned back, and the Complainant himself has to reach the office of the answering Opposite Parties to take the parcel and to know the reasons of returning of the same. It has been further pleaded that the company is liable only to the extent as per the policy of the company i.e. Rs.100/-. Moreover, the Complainant has not insured the parcel or has not taken the risk charge policy of the company for more coverage and now he is trying to shift the burden of his own fault towards the answering Opposite Parties. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.     The Complainant also filed rejoinder wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.     Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the Complainant and perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Complainant, as well as Opposite Parties.

 

7.     The main contention of the Complainant that the consignment was not delivered by the Opposite Parties, is found to be correct, which is evident from the e-mail of the Opposite Parties dated 12.06.2013, addressed to the Complainant which is available at page 15 of the paper book.

 

8.     Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties argued that the company is liable only to the extent as per the policy of the company i.e. Rs.100/-. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the above argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, but we are not impressed with the same. Pertinently, the consignment note is not signed by the Complainant and the conditions mentioned thereon are of a small print, which do not appear to have been explained to the Complainant. There is thus clear deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties since the consignment containing certain important documents was not delivered to the addressee. As to what the consignment contained there is no evidence. But the fact remains that there was deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties for which the Complainant needs to be adequately compensated.

 

9.     For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is allowed against Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are, jointly and severally, directed:-

 

[a]  To pay Rs.10,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.7,500/- as cost of litigation;

10.     The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in per sub-para [a] above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.7,500/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. 

 

11.     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09^th July, 2015                                       

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

 

 

           Sd/-                     

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

“Dutt”                                                                                            MEMBER