Date of Filing:20-02-2016
Date of Order:26 -06-2019
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER
Wednesday, the 26th day of June, 2019
C.C.No.96 /2016
Between
G.Raj Kumar S/o. Late A.Gopalakrishnan
Aged 59 years, Occ: Private Service
R/o.flat No.203, YASASWY RESIDENCY
P.No.10-12-112, West Marredpally ,
Secunderabad - 500026. ……Complainant
And
1. DTDC Express Limited,
Having reegistered office at No.3,
Victoria Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560047
2. DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited,
Having office at Premises No.3-6-182,
West Marrredpally, Secunderabad – 500026 ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : Sri K.Simon Preeth Kumar
Counsel for the opposite Parties : Sri S.Promod Kumar
O R D E R
(By Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint has been preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that the opposite parties as courier and Cargo service Pvt.Ltd caused deficiency of service, hence to direct to them to pay the cost of Cargo booked by the complainant and award sum of Rs.10,000/- as damages for causing mental agony by negligently misplacing the cargo.
The complainant’s case in brief is that he booked a consignment with opposite party No.2 on 30-11-2015 and the said consignment consisting of food items weighing about 4.315 Kgs to be delivered to Mr.A. Rajesh, Uber India, 1045, Srivari Srinath, 3rd floor, Avinashi Road, Coimbatore. The amount of Rs.950/- was paid as consignment charges and obtained a receipt from opposite party No.2. The consignment was to carry to USA for the benefit of complainant’s son staying in the USA and consignment was packed with to confirm to standard the quality test at USA. At the time of booking the consignment the complainant was assured by opposite party No.2 that within 4 days from the date of booking the consignment will be delivered to the addressee Mr. A.Rajesh , Coimbatore who was leaving to USA from Coimbatore on 07-12-2015 and the opposite parties has agreed for it. After booking of the consignment on 30-11-2015 it was not received by the addressee Mr.A.Rajesh at Coimbatore even one week of it. Hence addressee left for USA without consignment with him. Whenever complainant made enquiry the opposite party No.2 assured that the consignment will be reached to the addressee within two or three days but it has not happened. The complainant also contacted opposite party No.1 at Chennai and learnt that the consignment was lost in the floods and complainant was asked to contact opposite party No.2 for collection of damages.
On 14-12-2015 the complainant lodged a complaint with opposite party No.2 asking to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards cost of the food items and courier charges paid. Having acknowledged of the said consignment by opposite party No.2 failed to response. Hence the complainant sent a email to opposite party No.1 to enquire on 25-12-2015 asked to settle the dispute within 10 days failing which he will proceed legally but there was no response even from opposite party No.1 also. Hence the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.
Common written version has been filed for opposite party No.1&2 admitting booking of consignment by complainant and on payment of consignment charges but denied the rest of the complainant’s version.
The defense set out in the written version is that the complainant was never assured that the consignment would reach the addressee at Coimbatore within four days of booking of the same. They have not received any written complaint alleged to have been sent by the complainant on 14-12-2015 and complainant with a malafied intention created the said document.
At the time of booking the complainant was informed about the consignment note terms and conditions and as per the said terms and conditions the consignment charges and value of the goods shall be not paid if the consignment is lost or damage due to natural calamities like floods, fire, rain, earthquake, strikes, violence accidents etc. Despite the said terms and conditions the complainant claiming compensation under different heads which cannot be considered.
It is known to everyone that in the month of November and December when the consignment was booked there were heavy rains and floods in Chennai and due to the said reasons the entire transport system, net work system and all the communications were totally collapsed for about one month. In every newspaper and news channels the rains and floods were shown in live telecast . The floods were heavily affected in Chennai, Coimbatore and other districts. The Government of India declared holidays for schools for several days and to restore the normal conditions the Government of India deployed the solders and started rescue operations. Due to rains and floods in Chennai, industries, companies, complexes, cargo and transport business etc were totally destroyed and despite the best efforts by the opposite parties the consignment booked by the complainant was lost and there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. Since the consignment was lost in the floods and as per the terms and conditions of the consignment note the opposite parties are not liable either to refund the courier charges of consignment paid by the complainant or loss of consignment value thereof. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed
In the enquiry the complainant has got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the substance of the complaint and he also got exhibited copies of receipt of booking of the consignment with the opposite party No.2 a value sheet copy prepared by him showing the value of food items entries to opposite party No.2 for delivery of the same to Coimbatore and copy of the complaint stated to have been sent to opposite party No.1 on 25-12-2015 to settle the issue by paying the cost of the consignment as A1 to A3. Similarly for the Opposite Party evidence affidavit of one Sri Kartik Reddy stated to be their authorized signatory is got filed and the substance of the said affidavit is in line with the defense set out in the written version. For the complainant written arguments are filed.
On a consideration of material available on record the following points have emerged for consideration .
- Whether the opposite parties by not delivering the consignment booked by the complainant to addressee at Coimbatore have caused deficiency of service ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts claimed in the complaint?
- To what relief?
Point No.1: Booking of consignment by the complainant to opposite party No.2 on 30-11-2015 and paying a sum of Rs.925/- towards consignment charges are not in dispute. Similarly the fact of not delivering the consignment to addressee at Coimbatore is not in dispute. The only defense is taken by the opposite parties is that as per the consignment note terms and conditions if the consignment is lost on account of natural calamities like floods, rains, fire or other disasters the consignor cannot seek the cost of the consignment and the charges paid while booking the consignment and these terms and conditions are printed in the consignment note. The opposite parties have pleaded so has not placed copy of the said terms and conditions on record. The opposite party also pleaded that during the month of November and December 2015 there were heavy rains in Chennai and Coimbatore and other places and the fact of flooding in these areas has been published in all the newspapers and have shown live cost in Electronic media. In evidence of the same the opposite parties have not filed acceptable evidence in the record. In the absence of acceptable evidence that after booking of the consignment by the complainant and during the transit period there were heavy floods and disruption of transport system etc the self serving plea taken by the opposite parties cannot be countenanced. What prevented the opposite parties to file relevant record to prove that there were heavy floods and disruption of transport system at relevant point of time is not explained. Hence assuming for a moment without admitting that the consignment note contains terms and conditions and the complainant having acquiesced with the same booked the consignment it is incumbent upon the opposite parties to place on record for acceptable evidence that at relevant point o f time there were heavy rains and flooding causing disruption in transport system and loss of goods in the transit and absence of the same the defence taken by the opposite parties cannot be accepted as true. Thus the opposite parties having taken a specific plea assigning reasons for not delivering the consignment failed to substantiate the same and thus it has caused deficiency of service to the complainant. Accordingly the point is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2: In view of the above findings it is to follow that the complainant is entitled for the cost of the consignment amount paid toward consignment charges and damages. Accordingly point is answered.
Point No.3: In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties
- To refund the amount of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant with interest there on at 18% P.A from the date of booking the consignment to the date of payment
- The opposite parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and to pay Rs.3,000/- towards costs of this complaint
Time for compliance : 30 days from the date of service of this order
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by her, pronounced by us on this the 26th day of June , 2019
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1- copy of receipt issued by opposite party No.2
Ex.A2- copy of complaint dt.14-12-2015
Ex.A3- copy of mail dt.25-12-2015
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties
-Nil-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
