West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/78/2018

RAHUL GHOSH - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC COURIER & CARGO LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SANTANU CHAKRABORTY

14 Feb 2020

ORDER

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is the owner of Maa Tara Watch and electronics which is the authorized service centre of Swip Telecom LLP. The complainant had sent a courier through the OP, DTDC to Swip Telecom, Pune, consignment being No. K07768892 dtd. 31-01-2018 containing defective handsets and defective spare parts but the said courier did not reach its destination. The complainant made an enquiry to Swip Telecom Pune and in the delivery report prepared by the OP, the consignment is claimed to be delivered. The complainant had paid the charge for the said service. The complainant had made several enquires and lodged complaint to the OP being Complaint Case No. 10767998. The OP with reference to the track record wrote on 18.04.2018 through e-mail to the complainant that since the consignment had reached its destination, the case is closed. Thereafter, through a further communication dtd. 09^th July, 2018 the OP informed through e-mail that the said consignment was lost in transit.  The complainant had to face severe loss due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and hence prayed for consignment back as well as compensation.

The OP appeared in this case after receiving summon and filed Preliminary objection challenging the maintainability of this case by petition dated 12.09.2018 and also filed written version on 12.10.2018. Later, on 26.06.2019 the OP

Contd….P/2.

-:2:-

 

filed a petition stating that written version filed by him be treated as evidence on affidavit. The complainant filed his evidence on 27.02.2019 and has annexed some documents as exhibit 1 to 10.  The case proceeded contested. The complainant and OP filed their written notes on argument on 23.12.2019.

To prove his case, the complainant had filed the following documents.

1. Docket receipt,
2. List of items and spare parts sent,
3. Delivery report,
4. Corresponding mails.

On the basis of the above discussion, the following points come up for determinations:-

1. Whether the OP has committed any unfair trade practice?
2. Was there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as sought for?
4. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?

 

DECISION WITH REASONS.

All the four points are taken up together for convenience of discussions and for considerations.

The complainant has sent a consignment through the OP vide exhibit-1. The exhibit- 2 & 3 are list of items and spare parts sent in courier of OP. Exhibit-4 is delivery report and from this it appears that consignment was booked on 31.01.2018 and it was delivered on 05.02.2018 at Bimanagar Pune, Wagholi-Ram-Laxman Market.  Thus as per this report consignment was delivered.  The Exhibit-5 to 9 are e-mail correspondence between complainant and OP reading the whereabouts of consignment. From this it appears that search was going on to trace the consignment.  The exhibit-10 is status report and which OP side has informed through mail that efforts are made to locate the consignment but further decisions OP has declared the shipment has lost in transit.

In the result, it is found that consignment sent through the courier of OP by complainant has not been delivered to addressee though the complainant has paid charge for the consignment.

In the defence, the OP has stated that complainant has not put the value of the consignment on exhibit-1 but from the complainant’s side it has been made cleared that OP has not challenged the exhibit 2 and 3 which are list of items sent in the consignment. Hence, this part remains unchallenged by the OP

Contd….P/3.

-:3:-

 

rather OP in his written argument has stated that even though the value of goods were not disclosed at the time of delivery of goods but opposite party herein ready to return the four times of service charge to the complainant to maintain its dignity and reputation.  This shows that there is acceptance by the OP for non-delivery of consignment as well as OP is ready to return the service charges 4 times of the charge taken from the complainant.  Had it not been lost in transit or there has not been any deficiency in service, the OP would not have agreed for the same.

The only question which has been raised by OP is regarding maintainability of this case on the ground that complainant is not a consumer as complainant has not stated anywhere in the complaint that he is running the business only for his livelihood and in absence of such recital in the complaint this case should be rejected and in support of his argument the OP side has referred some decisions as mentioned in the written notes on argument.

On the other hand, it appears that complainant in his evidence has stated that he is owner of Maa Tara Watch & electronics which is an authorized service center of Swipe Telecom LLP.  He has further stated in his evidence that “Maa Tara Watch & electronics” is only source of his income and he run this business for his bread and butter.  This part of evidence has not been challenged by OP. It has been argued on behalf of Ld. counsel for the complainant that the evidence of complainant is unchallenged and case is based on the evidence though there may be slight difference in drafting of the complaint but it will not prejudice the right of complainant to be a consumer. It is to be mentioned that Consumer Protection Act, is a beneficial legislation and complainant must get the benefit of this legislation because nowhere it has been mentioned that complainant is doing business for commercial purpose and thus within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant appears to be a consumer and this complaint is maintainable before this Forum.

Under these facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has been able to establish his case and thus it is held that OP has caused deficiency in service against complainant and to that effect the allegation of adoption of unfair trade practice upon the complainant has been proved. All the issued are thus disposed of in favour of the complainant.

The complainant is entitled to get claim of compensation of Rs. 43,526/- (forty three thousand five hundred twenty six rupees) only equal to consignment valuation.  The complainant has suffered mental pain and agony as well as faced harassment and on that ground complainant is further entitled to get a sum of Rs. 30,000/- from the OP. In the result the instant case

Contd….P/4.

-:4:-

 

succeeds in part. Hence, it is,

O R D E R E D

that the instant Consumer Case being No. 78-S-2018 be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the OP DTDC.  The complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 43,526/- towards consignment valuation from the OP of this case.  The complainant is further entitled to get sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards compensation for mental pain agony and harassment from the OPs.  The OP DTDC is thus directed to pay the said sum of Rs. 43,526 + Rs. 30,000/- totaling Rs. 73,526/- (seventy three thousand five hundred twenty six rupees) only to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till its realization in full. In case of default the complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution through this Forum as per provision of law.

Let a copy of this judgment/final order be supplied to the parties free of cost at once.