Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/130/2017

S.R. Saini - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Express Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint No.	:	130/2017
Date of Institution	:	06.02.2017
Date of Decision	:	01.12.2017

 

                                       

                                               

S.R.Saini, Flat No.1363, Sector 49-B, Pushpak Complex, Chandigarh (now residing at Flat No.301, 4^th     Tower, Motia Royal City Zirakpur).

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

1.     DTDC Express Ltd., Regd. Office No.3, Victoria Road, Bengaluru-560047.

 

2.     M/s A.S. Associates, SCO No.146-147, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh (Franchise Code JFJO 79).

…. Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Complainant in person.

                 Sh.B.S.Walia, Advocate for the OPs.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         Briefly put, the case of the complainant is that he availed the services of the OPs for sending the two articles (i.e. WD My Passport Ultra 1 TB Wired External Hard Disk Driver and Honor Power Bank 13000 mah purchased for Rs.4407/- from Flipkart vide invoice dated 12.10.2016) to his son at Kolkatta vide consignment No.Z99845990 on 18.10.2016 by paying Rs.260/- as courier charges.  However, the said consignment did not reach the consignee (his son) and on enquiry, he was informed by the OPs that the consignment is not traceable yet and the OPs apologized for non-delivery of the same. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In its written statement, OP No.1 has admitted that a sum of Rs.260/- has been charged for booking the consignment. However, it has further been pleaded that in proof of the averments that the said consignment contained passport ultra hard disk drive and honor power bank, the complainant has not mentioned this factum on the parcel as per the policy of the company.  It has further been pleaded that the complainant has not insured the parcel in dispute as per the rules and regulations of the company and secondly the answering OP did not know about the contents of the parcel which was consigned by him.  It has further been pleaded that as per the policy of the company, the liability is restricted to Rs.100/- only. The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         In its separate written statement, OP No.2 took the identical objections as were taken by OP No.1 in its written statement.   The remaining allegations have been denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4.         The complainant filed rejoinder to the written replies of the Opposite Parties controverting their stand and reiterating his own.
5.         We have heard the arguments advanced by both the sides and gone through the documentary evidence on record.
6.         From the perusal of Annexure C-4 i.e. the consignment receipt No.Z99845990 on 18.10.2016 it cannot be guessed that the consignment sent by the complainant was containing the articles i.e. passport ultra hard disk drive and honor power bank as alleged. It is only evident from the consignment receipt that the complainant had booked a consignment to be sent to the consignee at Kolkata by paying a Rs.260/- to the OPs.  To our mind, if the parcel contained valuable articles as alleged, it was the duty of the consignor to declare the contents as well as the value thereof or to get the same insured before sending same to the consignee.   Hence, in the absence of such a declaration, to our mind, from the self-serving affidavit, furnished by the complainant, it is not proved that the parcel contained the articles as alleged in the complaint.
7.         However, it is an admitted fact between the parties that the said consignment had lost in transit. This fact is also evident from an e-mail dated 06.01.2017 sent by the OPs to the complainant. 
8.         Since the complainant had neither mentioned the contents of the goods nor its value on the consignment and as such he cannot be held entitled to Rs.4407/- as claimed and,  therefore, the liability of the OPs is restricted to Rs.100/-. However, due to non-delivery of the consignment to his son, the complainant has certainly suffered great mental agony and harassment and as such he is entitled to a reasonable compensation on this count. .  
9.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The opposite parties are directed as under ;-

1. To pay Rs.100/- as per limited liability to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,500/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.2,500/- as litigation expenses.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till its actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

10.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

01/12/2017

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER