Haryana

Panchkula

CC/137/2017

RAJIV GOEL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC EXPRESS LTD - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

25 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.        

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	137 of 2017
Date of Institution	:	13.7.2017
Date of Decision	:	25.04.2018

               

Rajiv Goel S/o Sh. D.P.Goel, R/o House No.326, Sector 6, Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1. DTDC Express Limited, Regd. Office No.3, Victoria Road, Benglaluru-560047 through Divisional Manager.

 

2. DTDC Express Limited, Shop No. 138, Sector 8, Panchkula through Authorized Representative.

 

 

….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mr.Jagmohan Singh, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person. 

                        Mr.B.S.Walia, Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

(Dharam Pal, President)

1. The brief facts of the complaint are that on 27.5.2017, the complainant deposited certain documents vide CN No.F10309580 at the office of the DTDC express limited, Sector 8, Panchkula for courier to Chandigarh with the assurance that the documents would be delivered by tomorrow and moreover the delivery was made on 1.6.2017 (wrongly mentioned as 1.5.2017) and it was refused as out of date because the said documents were to be sent to the concerned office by 30.5.2017. On 8.6.2017, the complainant received a call from OP No.2 regarding collection of documents and the complainant collected the same on 9.6.2017. At the online tracking system the status uploaded for the booking date was 27.5.2017 and last status date uploaded was 1.6.2017 and the status uploaded shown as not delivered (incomplete address). The complainant submitted that earlier the complainant sent certain documents through OPs at the same address, which were delivered at the same address.  The complainant deposited the documents to the OP No.2 in Panchkula on 27.5.2017, which was to be delivered in Chandigarh 1.6.2017 within the distance of 15 KMs even though the same were not delivered in time. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared to contest their complaint by filing the written statement with the contentions that the complaint is not maintainable. It is stated that as per track report to deliver the parcel in question to the addressee first attempt was made on 1.6.2017 at 17.16 hrs, but could not be delivered due to incomplete address. The parcel was booked on 27.5.2017 and could not be delivered due to incomplete address. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs. 
3. The complainant placed on record his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, the OPs has placed on record the affidavit as Annexure R-A and has closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the record carefully.
5. Admittedly, the complainant deposited certain documents with the Ops on 27.05.2017 with the assurance that the documents would be delivered within two days whereas the delivery was made on 01.06.2017 and the same was received with the report that refused as ‘out of date’ which came to the knowledge of the complainant on 08.06.2017 as informed by the Op No.2. The grievance of the complainant is that after giving assurance, the Ops did not send the documents in time as the documents were to be delivered at Chandigarh within the distance of 15 KMs.
6. On the other hand, the Ops submitted that as per track report, the parcel in question was delivered to the addressee on 01.06.2017 at 17.16 hrs and the same could not be delivered in time due to incomplete address.
7. After going through the documents available on case file, it reveals that the complainant booked the parcel on 27.05.2017 which was delivered to the addressee on 01.06.2017 after 4 days whereas the last date to receive the documents by concerned authority was 30.05.2017 and the same was returned with the report that refused as out of date. As per version of the complainant, the Ops told him that they would send the parcel within two days but there is no evidence on file. The complainant has not placed on record any terms and conditions or agreement that the Ops are bound to send the parcel within two days. However, the report on the parcel envelop shows that the addressee did not accept the parcel as the same was out dated. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
9. A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

 

 

Announced

25.04.2018                 JAGMOHAN SINGH                  DHARAM PAL

                                        MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                       

                                                DHARAM PAL 

                                                PRESIDENT