DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………….
Presents:-
- Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 30th day of October’ 2018.
C.C.No. 56 of 2017.
Sri Sashi Bhusan Majhi, S/o- Debarchan Majhi
At- tangarapada ( Word -14) Po/Via /via- Titlagarh,
Dist- Bolangir. .. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1. DTDC Courier Titilagarh, FR Coad- WF/77,
Titlagarh-767033, Odisha
2. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited
Customers Returns Dock, No,1/B, Indospace
Logistics Park, Puduvoyal Durainallur Village
Ponneri Taluk Thiruvalluvar, TN 601206 .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the Complainant- None.
Adv. for the Opp.Parties – None.
Date of filing of the case-20.11.2017
Date of order - 30.10.2018
ORDER.
Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
1. The complainant had purchased a mobile phone from O.P.2 for a consideration of Rs.13999/- through online purchase. After receipt of the said mobile phone the complainant found some defects in the battery of the mobile and hence he returned the same through courier service O.P.1. The complainant alleges that although he had sent duly through O.P.1 the same was received by O.P.2 without mobile, i.e. an empty packed. Hence the complainant has preferred this consumer complaint.
2. Although notice has been served on the O.Ps. neither they appear nor have filed their version and hence they are set experte vide order dated 6.9.18.
3. Heard the complainant who appears in person. Perused the complaint petition and material available on record. The prayer of the complainant in his complaint petition reads as under:- “ Hence prayed that the O.P. courier services DTDC or Amazon who ever may be responsible be directed to pay rupees 1399/- the value of parcel mobile along with Rs.5000/-towards compensation for causing mental tension and Rs. 1000/- towards litigation cost.” This prayer of the complainant does not disclose that for whose deficiency he has preferred this case. The complainant has also not produce the original documents and the terms and conditions of the aforesaid purchase to establish the deficiency of O.P.2.
4. Upon consideration on the available material available on record, it is seen from the consignment receipt dt. 9. 11. 2017 issued by the OP. 1 vide consignment No. V40890495 that the complainant had consigned a mobile valued at Rs. 14,000/- before the O.P.No.1 for sending the same to the O.P.No.2 through OP1’s courier service and accordingly the complaint had paid service charges amounting to Rs. 850/-. It is seen from the email of the OP.2 that he had received an empty packet from the DTDC courier service. With these evidence available on record it is a fact that, the complainant had consigned a mobile phone valued at Rs.14,000/- before the O.P.1 for sending through his courier service and the complainant paid the courier charges. But the said consignment was delivered to the O.P.2 with an empty packet. This fact has not been disputed nor any rebuttal evidence has been produce by the O.Ps. The O.P. 1 is duty bound to delivered the consignment as it is but since the consignment has not been delivered with proper care the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1 .
5. Due to the aforesaid negligent act of the OP.1 the complainant sustain financial loss and the OP.1 is liable to compensate the same. Further it is seen from the record that from the very beginning of the case the complainant is absent till 6.9.18 and hence the complainant is not entitled to cost. Hence;-
ORDER
The O.P.No1 is directed to pay Rs. 14,000/- towards the cost of the consignment goods to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount shall bear an interest @ 9% PA till payment. There shall be no order as to cost.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in open Forum to-day the 30th day of October 2018.
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
