Haryana

Ambala

CC/50/2020

Gargrish Scientific Works - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Express Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Vibhor Mehta

27 Jan 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         :  50 of 2020

                                                          Date of Institution           :  12.02.2020

                                                          Date of decision    :   27.01.2021

 

Gargrish Scientific Works, 18, Mamta Vihar, V & P.O., Babyal, Ambala Cant., 133005 (Haryana), through Shri Vibhor Mehata, Sole Proprietor, Mobile No.9355543428 (GST No.06AGWPM6268Q1Z6).

                                                                                       ……. Complainant.

 

1. D.T.D.C. Express Limited, Registered Office: No.3, Victoria Road, Bengaluru 560047 through its Managing Director.
2. D.T.D.C. Express Limited, Branch Office at Chandigarh Ambala Road, Opposite Healing Touch Hospital, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.
3. Lamba Express Service, 2442/2, Timber Market, Ambala Cantt.-133001 through its Franchise Proprietor, Mobile No.9416551688.

               ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Complainant in person.

Shri Bhupinder Singh Walia, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

 

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay the cost of consignment i.e Rs.13,750/- delivered by the OPs alongwith interest @ 18% w.e.f. 30.09.2019.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.25,000/- as litigation costs.

 

382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant being the sole proprietor of the above said firm is engaged in business of manufacturing of Scientific Laboratory instruments and also wholesaler of the same. On 30.09.2019, the complainant booked a consignment containing item amounting to Rs.13,570/- from the OPs under DOD (Demand Draft on delivery) consignment Note No.103439143 to deliver the same to M/s Madhu Scientific Lab, Kurnool (A.P.). As per the said consignment note, the OPs have to collect the DD of Rs.13,570/- from the receiver i.e M/s Madhu Scientific Lab, Kurnool (A.P.) and to deliver the same to the complainant, but OPs delivered the parcel without obtaining the DD from the receiver which amounts to sheer negligence on the part of the OPs in performing their obligation which resulted in deficiency in service, under Consumer Protection Act on their part, due to which complainant suffered a loss of Rs.13,750/- i.e the cost of the consignment. He approached the OPs several times and requested for his demand draft, but they paid no heed to legitimate requests of the complainant. He and OPs exchanged communications between such other through whatsapp. Even, then the OPs did not resolve the issue. He also sent E-mail to the OPs for Redressal of the grievance, but of no avail. By not delivering the parcel to the addressee, the OPs had committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding cause of action, maintainability due to non-joinder of necessary party i.e M/s Madhu Scientific Lab, Kurnool (AOP) and Jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that complainant may be put in strict proof regarding the contents of the consignment as the OPs were not having knowledge about the contents of the consignment nor it was informed about the same by the complainant, nor it was indicated on the consignment itself. It is further stated that when the delivery boy of the OPs company reached at the concerned address of the addressee to deliver the consignment and when he demanded amount of demand draft he was ill-treated and was threatened that he will not hand over him the demand draft and also the consignment which he had already received, to which the delivery boy told his higher authorities. The authorities informed the same to the complainant. The OPs company is dealing in providing best in class courier facilities around the globe and complainant is unnecessary dragging the name of the OPs company in this dispute between the complainant and the addressee. Further, the complainant could have filed a civil suit against the addressee for the recovery of the said amount as the dispute is now only between the addressee and the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, therefore, complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed with heavy costs.

3.                Complainant tendered affidavit of Vibhor Mehata, Sole Proprietor of complainant’s firm as Annexure C-A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered only affidavit of Hirender Kumar son of Shri Tek Chand, Legal working at Zonal office New Delhi as Annexure OP-A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and carefully gone through the case file and written arguments filed by the counsel for the OPs.  

5.                Admittedly, on 30.09.2019, complainant booked a consignment with the OPs, to deliver the same to M/s Madhu Scientific Lab, Kurnool (AOP). Perusal of document Annexure C-1, reveals that the said consignment was booked on 30.09.2019, through demand draft on delivery and the said consignment contains item valuing Rs.13,570/-. From the perusal of Annexure C-2, it is evident that complainant requested to OP No.3, he has not received the amount of item valuing Rs.13,570/- despite the fact the same was delivered. Thereafter, complainant sent a reminder (Annexure C-3), to the OPs on 21.12.2019, with regard to non-receipt of demand draft on account of item valuing Rs.13,570/-, but no response was received by the complainant from the OPs.  

6.                Learned counsel for the OPs argued that the delivery boy of the OPs company reached at the concerned address of the addressee to deliver the consignment and when he demanded amount of demand draft he was ill-treated and was threatened that he will not hand over him the demand draft and also the consignment which he had already received, to which the delivery boy told his higher authorities and they are not deficient in providing the services as the person who received the consignment failed to deliver the demand draft in question.

7.                From the perusal of COD/FOD Consignment Note dated 30.09.2019 Annexure C-1, it is specifically mentioned that the OPs shall deliver the items against receipt of demand draft. However, the OPs in their written version admitted that despite delivery of consignment they have not received demand draft from the consignee. It is the duty of the OPs to hand over the consignment to M/s Madhu Scientific Lab, Kurnool (AOP), after receiving the demand draft. Thus, the OPs are found deficient in providing service to the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view that the OPs are liable to indemnify the complainant to the tune of Rs.13,570/- for the actual loss suffered by the complainant. As such, we do not hesitate to direct the OPs to pay Rs.13,570/- to the complainant alongwith interest. The OPs are also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs in the following manner:-

1. To pay Rs.13,570/-, alongwith interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e 12.02.2020.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 7% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :-27.01.2021.

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)            (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                                      President