D.O.F:07/09/2020
D.O.O:14/10/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.No.110/2020
Dated this, the 14th day of October 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Miss. Vinitha. V,
D/o. Viswambaran
P.K, Micro Enterprise Consultant,
District Kudumbasree Mission,
Kasaragod, R/at. Udyagiri,
Madhur Grma Panjayth, Vidyanagar, : Complainant
Kasaragod.
(Adv: K. Vinod Kumar)
And
1. DTDC Express Limited
Registered Officer, N 3, Victoria Road,
Bangalore 560047
2. DTDC Express Ltd, : Opposite Parties
ICP Road, Kasaragod
(Adv: K. Abdul Nasir)
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The complainant Miss Vineetha.V is working as the micro enterprise consultant District Kudumbasree Mission Kasaragod. The District Kudumbasree Mission decided to participate in SARAS FAIR at Lucknow, conducted by the Government of India from 14th to 24th of Februvary 2019. Accordingly the complainant collected several items including cashew nuts, honey, mat, curry powders, rice powder, coriander powder, chili powder etc from Kudumbasree units to sell the same in fare. The Items were packed in two boxes and the complainant entrusted these boxes to send through the courier service of the Opposite Party On 08/02/2019 as per consignment No: D 48865830 from Opposite Party addressing the Mission Director, Chief Executive Officer Utharpradesh State Rural Livelihood Mission Eldecho Co- operative tower Vibuthi Khand, It was containing six boxes and the weight was 104 kg. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 12,480/- towards the courier service charges and Opposite Party No: 2 received the same promising that the parcel will be delivered to the addressee without any delay and damages. Out of the six boxes only five boxes were delivered by the Opposite Party to the addressee on 16/02/2019. One box containing cashew packets worth more than Rs. 30,000/- has not been delivered by Opposite Party. All the boxes delivered by the Opposite Party to the addressee were in a damaged condition. Mouse entered into the boxes and destroyed the articles inside the boxes. The Complainant herself collected the boxes from Lucknow. On noticing the damages on the boxes delivered and non delivery of one box with cashew packets, the complainant contacted Opposite Party No:2 and the customer care. Even though Opposite Party No:2 agreed to find out the missing box and compensate for the damages they did not give any further response. Hence the complainant had send an e mail dated 21/02/2019 with the photographs of the items delivered. Till date Opposite Party No:2 did not given any reply to the same. So the complainant caused to send a registered lawyer notice to the Opposite Parties claiming damages for deficiency in service on 26/06/2019. Even though both of the Opposite Parties received the notice they did not sent any reply or paid any damages. There are serious negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties due to which the complainant suffered huge loss mental tension and agony as the Opposite Parties are failed to comply the terms of the agreement with the complainant. The Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and damages sustained by her. Due to the non delivery of box with cashew packets the complainant suffered loss of Rs. 30,000/-. Due to the damages to the other items inside the boxes he suffered a loss of Rs. 50,000/- . Moreover the complainant constrained to pay compensation for loss to the Kudumbasree and they are about take action against her for recovery of the loss. Opposite Parties are liable to return the courier charges of Rs. 12,450/- . Hence the complainant claims an amount of Rs. 2,92,480/- from Opposite Parties towards the financial loss and damages suffered by her with cost of the litigation.
Notice to Opposite Parties served, but Opposite Party No:2 remained absent name of Opposite Party No:2 called absent set exparte. Opposite Party No: 1 filed version stating that complaint is false frivolous vexatious. Opposite Party No:1 stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant has no locus standy to file the above complaint. Moreover the complaint is barred by limitations. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(7) (ii) .she has availed the services of Opposite Party for commercial /Business purpose and not for livelihood. Opposite Party again submits that the complainant booked a consignment bearing No: D448865830 from Kasaragod to Lucknow on 08/02/2019 through the second Opposite Party at Kasaragod. Before booking the booking franchise had given an outline about the service entered by the Opposite Parties and given specific answers to all her doubts. Regarding the carriage of the consignment. The Opposite Parties specifically stated and inform to the complainant that is the consignment contains any perishable or contra band goods they will not accept the same for carriage. The consignment was in a packed condition so the Opposite Parties are not aware the contents of the consignment. Though the Opposite Party requested the complainant into declare the contents and value of the entire contents in the consignment and pay additional risk charges. Moreover the consignment had no more insurance coverage as well. The net weight of the consignment was 103.99 Kgs, for which the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 12,480/- as fright charges. Though an approximate total value of six boxes were declared in shipment summery as Rs. 45,000/- no additional risk coverage value was paid. Hence the consignment was carried at the owners risk. All the six boxes reached at the destination safely and was delivered to the complainant on 16/02/2019. The present allegation that out of the six boxes only five boxes were delivered is in correct and further the value of the lost box are worth Rs. 30,000/- is also absolutely false. The Opposite Party not received any legal notice from the complainant. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. So they complaint may be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and was cross examined by Opposite party as Pw1 and the documents produced were marked as Ext A1 to A6.
The main question raised for the consideration are
- Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so what is the relief?
For convenience issues 1 to 3 can be discussed together.The allegation of the complainant is that the complainant send six boxes of Kudumbasree products like cashew nuts, honey mat, curry powders, rice powders, corianders powders and chilli powders to the SARAS FARE at Lucknow .But unfortunately out of the six boxes only 5 boxes are delivered to the addressee on 16/02/2019.One box containing cashew packets worth more than Rs. 30,000/- has not being delivered by Opposite Party.Even though complainant send e mail and registered lawyer notice to Opposite Parties claiming damages for deficiency in service Opposite Party did not send any reply or failed any damages.Ext A1 is the consignment note issued by Opposite party Ext A2 is the copy of delivery note issued by the Opposite party, Ext A3 is e-mail sent to complainant by Opposite party, Ext A4 is the registered lawyer notice, Ext A5 is the postal acknowledgment of the Opposite party No:1, Ext A6 is the postal acknowledgment of the Opposite party No:2.The main contentions in the Opposite party is that they delivered all the six boxes but the endorsement in Ext A2, delivery not shows that only 5 packets were delivered and the complainant was remaining waiting for the box.While perusing Ext A2 and A3, it is clear that only five boxes delivered and those were damaged as per photographs no evidence has been adduced by the Opposite party to prove that they delivered six boxes.Another contention raised by Opposite parties that the complainant did not declare the contents of the boxes and not insured the same.At the time of cross examination Pw1 clearly stated that the Opposite party did not made her to know such procedures and if they have informed she might have insured the boxes.This proves deficiency in service on the part of Opposite party No:2.The items were send on 08/02/2019.But the five boxes are delivered in damaged condition on 16/02/2019.The fare started on 14/02/2019. So there is delay in the delivering the item.While perusing the affidavit and documents the commission holds that there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of Opposite parties and the complainant suffered huge loss and mental agony due to the deficiency of service and negligence on the part opposite parties.The loss and agony undergone by the complainant as to be compensated.The complainant is entitled for a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh with cost of this proceedings.
Therefore compliant is allowed directing the Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) along with cost of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.
Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of the Judgement.
A1- Consignment note issued by Opposite Party
A2- Branch delivery run sheet
A3- E-mail sent by complainant
A4- Registered lawyer notice
A5 & A6- Postal Acknowledgment
Witness Examined
Pw1- Vinitha.N
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
