Kerala

Ernakulam

CC/17/151

E V BABYCHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC CUSTOMER SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

28 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
ERNAKULAM
 
Complaint Case No. CC/17/151
( Date of Filing : 19 Apr 2017 )
 
1. E V BABYCHAN
KOCHI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. DTDC CUSTOMER SERVICES
KOCHI
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. CHERIAN .K. KURIAKOSE PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SHEEN JOSE MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. V.K BEENAKUMARI MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 28 Apr 2018
Final Order / Judgement

 

 

  BEFORE THE  CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 28th day of April 2018

                                                          Filed on :  19-04-2017

 

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                                 President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                                 Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                      Member.             

                        CC.No.151/2017

                              Between  

                  

 

E.V. Babychan,                               :         Complainant

Eettackal, OIS -2078,                                       (Party-in-person)

Satellite Township,

Padamugal P.O.,

Kakkanad,

Cochin-682 030.

               And

 

1. The Manager,                                       :         Opposite parties

    Customer Services,                        (By Adv. Binu Mathew, Mathew

     DTDC Courier Services,                          Paily road, Behind Town Hall,

     Regional Office, APM Building,              Ernakulam North, Kochi-682 018)

     North Railway Station Road,

     IInd Floor, Cochin-18.

 

2. The  Manager,

    DTDC Courier Services,

    Branch Office, Surya Building,

    Palachuvadu,

    Padamughal P.O.,

    Cochin-682 030.

                                               O R D E R

 

Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.

 

1. Complainant’s case

2. The complainant had sent some imported chocolates, ladies garments, lime and dates, pickles and spices weighing 21 kgs. through the opposite parties M/s. DTDC from Palachodu to Ludhiyana in Punjab favouring his son  Dr. Adarsh Jose , Christian Medical College, Ludhiyana on 12-01-2017.  He paid Rs. 3,250/- as courier charges.  On 19-01-2017, the officers of the opposite parties had unloaded the consignment in the doorstep of the addressee without contacting  him regarding the  arrival of the consignment.  The opposite parties also did not get the signature as well in the copy of the consignment.  When the addressee received the consignment, it was totally broken and damaged  and  was covered in a white sack at the time of delivery to the addressee.  When the packages opened it was found that the package was torn from both sides using some sharp object and rats have nibbed some of the articles.  Many articles were found damaged or stolen.   When the complainant contacted the manager of the opposites party at Palachuvadu, Cochin he did not respond to the complaint.  The complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 8,200/- as damages and costs of the lost articles in addition to the complainant of    Rs. 3,000/- for mental agony suffered.  Hence the complaint.

3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties who appeared and contested the matter   by filing a version contending inter-alia as follows.

4. The complainant had booked a consignment weighing 19 kgs under consignment No. 3176 0416 dated 12-01-2017 through the 2nd opposite party who is only a franchisee of DTDC Express Ltd at Palachuvadu, Cochin. The consignment was booked to be consign by surface mode from Cochin to Ludhiana. The allegation that the consignment was weighing 21 kg is denied.  The consignment was delivered at the destination to the addressee promptly on 19-01-2017 without any delay, damage or shortage. The consignment was weighing 19 kgs when it was delivered. The complainant did not specify as to what were the items sent by him in the consignment.  The consignee who was present at the time of delivery at the place of destination had checked the consignment for any external damage.   After verifying, he signed the accepted sheet.  The allegation that it was delivered  at the doorsteps unattended is incorrect.  The consignee  did not make any complaint either written or oral with the office of the opposite party regarding the short delivery as alleged. The consignor is now stopped from raising a belated false claim. The list of items with its price shown in para 2 of the complaint were not provided to the opposite party at the time of delivering of  the consignment for booking. No articles were damaged either during transit or by delivering. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.   The complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

5. The following issues were settled for consideration

  1. Whether there was any  deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?
  2. Reliefs and costs

6. The evidence in this case consists of documentary  evidence of the complainant marked as  Exbts. A1 to A5.  The opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence but Exbt. B1 document was marked.

7. Issue No. i. The complainant had allegedly booked the consignment on 12-01-2017 having a weight of 21 kg.  Exbt. A3 is the consignment receipt issued from the Cochin office. Exbt. A3 does not show the declare value for carriage.  It shows only that Rs. 3,250/- was collected towards the  charges of the  carrier. The complainant is seen to have issued Exbt. A1   e-mail communication to the opposite party on              24-01-2017 and on 22-02-2017.  The said notice was received by the Cochin office of the opposite party as per Exbt. A4 acknowledgment. No other evidence is adduced by the complainant to prove that there was any short delivery.   Exbt. A3 did not contain the weight of the consignment. Therefore, we cannot conclusively find that the articles sent by the complainant were weighing  21 kgs as alleged. Exbt. B1 is a tracking details  of the consignment .  It is seen from Exbt. B1 that the value of the property  shown in Exbt A3 was O (zero) and the booking weight was 19 kgs as against the contention of the complainant that it was 21 kgs.

8. Instances of deficiency of service has to be conclusively proved by the complainant when such allegations are made.  In this case, there is not even an affidavit of the consignee who had allegedly received, short supply of the articles sent by the complainant.  Therefore, we find that the complainant has not established a case of deficiency in service  and we find no consumer dispute in this matter. Issue is accordingly found against the complainant.

 9. Issue No.ii.  Having found issue No. i against the complainant, we  find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

          Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 28th day of April 2018

 

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                 Cherian K. Kuriakose,          President.  

                                                                              Sd/-                                                          

                                                        Sheen Jose, Member.

                                                                             Sd/-                                        

                                                        Beena Kumari V.K., Member.

 

                                                          Forwarded/By Order,

 

 

                                                          Senior Superintendent.

 

 

 

                                                          Appendix

 

Complainant's Exhibits

                                      Exbt. A1     :         Copy of G-mail dt. 24-01-2017

                                                A2     :         Copy of G-mail

                                                A3     :         Copy of consignment note

                                                A4     :         True copy of letter dt 22-02-2017

                                                A5     :         True copy of A.D. card

 

Opposite party's exhibits:

                             Exbt. B1              :         Copy of shipment summary

Copy of order despatched on :

By Post:                        By Hand:

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. CHERIAN .K. KURIAKOSE]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. SHEEN JOSE]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. V.K BEENAKUMARI]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.