DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st  day of July 2018

Present   : Smt.Shiny.P.R. President

: Smt.Suma.K.P. Member                                             

: Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member          Date of filing:  14/11/2017         

      (CC/162/2017)

M.N.Govind,

S/o N.K.Nair (Late),

Visram, 22/720,

Kunnathurmedu (PO),

Palakkad – 678 013.                                                         -        Complainant

(By Adv.K.K.Jaidip)

 V/s

1.  DTDC Express Limited,

     Door No.10/367, Apex-Centre,

     V.H Road, Palakkad – 678 001.                           -        Opposite parties

     (Rep by Authorised Signatory/Manager)

2.  DTDC Express Limited,

     Regd Office, No.3 Victoria Road,

     Bangaluru, 560 047.

    (Rep by Authorised Signatory/Manager)

    (By Advs.Binu Mathew & Ajitha.A)

                                                O R D E R

By Smt. Shiny.P.R. President

Brief facts of the complaint.

          On 09.06.2017 complainant had sent a steel trunk box with items from Palakkad to Guwahati to his son Gautham Krishna who is working in the Armed Forces at Guwahati, Assam. The above trunk box was assigned to the complainant’s son by the Armed Forces. 1^st opposite party had weighed the box and noted the weight as 14 kgs and complainant had paid Rs.1,190/- as per the direction of 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party being an agent of 2^nd opposite party guaranteed safe delivery of the trunk in proper condition.  The opposite parties delivered the trunk box on 22.06.2017.  But the trunk box was seen as completely damaged and it is realized that it cannot be used again. So the complainant’s son is compelled to purchase a new trunk box for an amount of Rs. 1,850/-. Therefore the complainant sent several email complaints to opposite parties but no reply.  Then complainant visited the office of 1^st opposite party several times but no response from their part.  Complainant submitted that he and his son had suffered a lot of mental agony and financial loss due to the sheer negligence of opposite parties. Hence the complaint.  Complainant prays for an order directing opposite parties to pay to the complainant the cost of damaged box Rs.1,850/, compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and suffering caused and to get  refund of charges Rs.1,190/- collected by the opposite parties alongwith cost of proceedings. 

          Complaint was admitted. Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version contending the following.

          Opposite parties contended that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and hence it is not maintainable. The liability of the opposite party company under the contract for carriage with the consignor is limited and governed by the terms and conditions as mentioned in the Consignment Note Leaf.  Furthermore no claim shall be entertained for any loss or damage, non-delivery, breakage etc. of the shipment unless a written claim is lodged within 30 days from the date of booking. The consignment was booked through the 1^st opposite party at Palakkad, under Consignment Number : D 32678491 on 09.06.2017, to the delivered to the consignee in Guwahati.  The consignment was booked as 1 piece and was weighing about 14 kilograms.  The freight charge of Rs.1,190/- alone was collected from the complainant at the time of booking by the 1^st opposite party.  The above said consignment was delivered to its intended consignee on 21.06.2017.  The consignment was delivered to the consignee in good condition there was no damage caused to the contents of the consignment or to the steel trunk in which the contents were carried.  The consignee had accepted the consignment in good condition without any complaints as there was no damage caused to the steel trunk as alleged by the complainant, who was not present at the time of delivery to the Consignee.  It is the admitted case of the complainant that the contents in the consignment were intact.  The acceptance of good/consignment without any such objections at the time of accepting the same from the carrier is simple proof that there is no damage whatsoever caused to the steel trunk as alleged now.  The consignee has not made any complainants till date as alleged by the complainant.  He is also not a party to the above complaint.  The allegations of the consignee buying a new trunk from the authorities by paying Rs.1,850/- are not matters concerning the opposite party at all.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged.  The 1^st& 2^nd opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant for any of the alleged loss and suffering.  There is no unfair trade practice, inferior quality or substandard services provided.  The complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed.  Hence complaint is to be dismissed with cost of these opposite parties.

          Complainant and opposite parties filed their chief affidavits.    Exts.A1 to A3 was marked from the side of the complainant. Exts. A2 were in series. Complainant was cross examined as PW1.  Evidence was closed and the matter was heard. 

The following issues that arise for consideration are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues 1 & 2

We have perused the affidavits and documents filed before the Forum. Opposite parties admitted that complainant had sent a steel trunk box from Palakkad to Guwahati. They contended that the said consignment was delivered to consignee on 21.06.2017 in good condition without any complaints. Complainant admitted that contents in the trunk box were in good condition. But the trunk box was in damaged condition. Even though the complainant has not produced the damaged trunk box before the Forum, Ext. A2 series (b) and (c) evident  that the consigned trunk box was in damaged condition. Marking of those documents were not objected by the opposite parties. More over they have no case that photographs in the email produced by the complainant are not that of the alleged consigned trunk box.  Perusal of Ext. A2 series (a) and Ext. A3 clearly shows that on 28/6/2017 and 2/8/2017 complainant had sent two email complaints to the opposite parties. But there was no response from the part of opposite parties. These documents show that complainant sent email complaints to the opposite parties within seven days from the date of acceptance of consignment.  There was no delay from the part of complainant informing the matter to the opposite parties.   Even after receiving the complaints opposite parties did not take any steps to redress the grievance of the complainant.  From the above discussions we are of the view that opposite parties handled the consigned goods with a careless manner which caused damage to the trunk box. They have not given proper care and caution to the consigned goods. Opposite parties have the duty to take care of the consigned goods and delivered it in good condition.  More over they have not sent any reply to the email complaints which were sent by the complainant for redressing his grievances. All these acts of opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Therefore opposite parties have liability to pay to the complainant compensation for the mental agony suffered.  The complainant did not adduce any documentary evidence to prove that his son has purchased new trunk box for his further use. So we are not in a position to allow the cost of trunk box.

Under the above circumstances complaint is partly allowed. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of proceedings.

This order shall be executed within one month from the date of receipt of this order; failing which the complainant is entitled to realize 9% interest p.a from the opposite parties on the total amount due to him from the date of this order till realization. 

Pronounced in the open court on this the 31^st day of July 2018.

                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                Shiny.P.R.

             President 

                Sd/-      

                                                                                        Suma.K.P.

              Member

                 Sd/-     

 V.P.Anantha Narayanan

            Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1          -  Original receipt dated.09.06.2017 bearing consignment number

             D32678491 for Rs.1,190/- issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant

Ext.A2 series -  Photocopy of email communication with photos  sent by opposite 

                       Party to the complainant

Ext.A3          - Photocopy of reminder email communication

Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties

Nil

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1   -  M.N.Govind

Witness examined on the side of opposite parties

Nil

Cost

          Rs.3,000/-