BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 13 of 2021
Date of Institution: 12.1.2021
Date of Decision:28.9.2021
Mr. Rajan Mehra S/o Sh. Dev Raj Mehra R/o 9, New Majitha House, Albert Road, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
DTDC Express Ltd., Victoria Road, Bangalore having its Branch/Booking office at Court Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 35 & 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)
Result : Complaint Allowed
Counsel for the parties :
For the Complainant : Sh. Deepinder Singh,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Ex-parte
CORAM
Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President
Mr.Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member
ORDER:-
Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President :-Order of this commission will dispose of the present complaint filed by attorney Holder Sh. Ranjit Singh u/s 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
Brief facts and pleadings
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant hired the services of the opposite party for sending a packet containing the sweets to Mumbai to his sister in law vide docket No. D85526881 dated 29.12.2020 for Rs. 1920/- including all charges, copy of docket is Ex.C-2. The complainant sent the packet to Mumbai to his sister in law Mrs. Anuradha Mehra at the address mentioned on the courier receipt and the declaration to the effect was made that the said packet contains the eatables with the invoice of Rs. 6020, copy of purchase bill is Ex.C-3. The opposite party assured to deliver the same in 48 hrs at its destination and was charged Air fare as the same was required for the New year eve on 31.12.2020 but against their promise the said packet was delivered on 4.1.2021 after lots of deliberations and calls to the opposite party. It is worth mentioning here that the contents of the packet i.e. sweets/eatables become stale and unworthy of human consumption and was to be thrown away. The purpose of sending the sweets was defeated as the same cannot be used on the very occasion for which it was sent and further caused embarrassment to the complainant . The aforesaid acts of the opposite party in delivering the said packet late is an act of deficiency in service, malpractice, unfair trade practice and an illegal and arbitrary act which has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite party be directed to refund the amount of contents amounting to Rs. 6020/- and fare charges of Rs. 1920/- alongwith interest from the date of payment till realization ;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
(b) Opposite party be also directed to pay adequate litigation expenses to the complainant ;
(b) Any other relief to which the complainant is entitled be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was served upon the opposite party but none appeared on behalf of the opposite party despite due service, as such opposite party was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 8.3.2021.
Evidence of the complainant and Arguments
3. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his self attested affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of docket issued by opposite party Ex.C-2, copy of purchase bill of sweets Ex.C-3 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file . Ld.counsel for the complainant has suffered a statement that he does not want to file written arguments and the contents of the complaint be read as part of written arguments.
Findings
5. From the averment of the complainant, it stands proved on record that complainant hired the services of the opposite party for sending a packet containing the sweets to Mumbai vide docket No. D85526881 dated 29.12.2020 for which the opposite party charged Rs. 1920/-, copy of docket is Ex.C-2. It also stands proved on record that on the courier receipt declaration of the said packet was made that it contains the eatables worth Rs. 6020, copy of purchase bill is Ex.C-3. It was the case of the complainant that the opposite party assured to deliver the same in 48 hrs at its destination as the same was required for the New year eve on 31.12.2020 . But the said packet was delivered on 4.1.2021 and the purpose of sending the sweets was defeated as the same cannot be used on the New Year occasion . Moreover the contents of the packet i.e. sweets/eatables become stale and unworthy of human consumption and was to be thrown away. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that the aforesaid acts of the opposite party in delivering the said packet late is an act of deficiency in service, malpractice, unfair trade practice and an illegal and arbitrary act which has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. In order to prove his case the complainant has filed his self attested affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of docket invoice Ex.C-2, copy of purchase bill of sweets Ex.C-3. On the other hand the evidence adduced by the complainant remained unrebutted as none made appearance on behalf of the opposite party as such opposite party impliedly admitted the case of the complainant.
6. From the above discussion, it stands proved on record that the consignment i.e. eatables contents which was booked on 29.12.2020 for the delivery at Mumbai on the New Year Eve, was delivered at the destination on 4.1.2021 i.e. after the celebrations of New Year , as such the purpose of sending the sweets was defeated and the complainant faced embarrassment before the guests who were gathered for celebration of New Year. Moreover the opposite party assured to deliver the packet within 48 hrs but the same were delivered on 4.1.2021, as such the eatables items ,which were duly declared on the receipt Ex.C-2, become stable and unworthy of human consumption and was to be thrown away. The omission on the part of the opposite party in delivering the eatables items at very late stage, amounts to dereliction in service on their part , for which the opposite party is liable to refund the cost of the eatables contents as well as service charges and is also liable for compensation.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint stands allowed accordingly and the complainant is entitled to the following relief:-
(i)Opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 6020/- as the cost of the eatables items and also to refund Rs. 1920/- as charged by the opposite party for the delivery of the contents at Mumbai.
(ii) So far as compensation as claimed is concerned, since the complainant was compelled to knock the door of this Commission and the opposite party did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant and had it was redressed at appropriate time, certainly this litigation could have been avoided . As the complainant , has faced embarrassment as well as mental agony due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, as such the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 10000/- to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant
Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which the complainant is entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission.
Announced in Open Commission (Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra) President
Dated: 28.9.2021
(Jatinder Singh Pannu)
Member
