Kerala

Idukki

CC/82/2017

Ratheesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Express Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Shiji Joseph

31 Oct 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 04/05/17

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 31^st day of October 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

CC NO. 82/2017

Between

Complainant : Ratheesh, S/o Chandran,

Edapparambil House,

Panickankudy P.O., Konnathady Village.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : 1 . DTDC Express Ltd., Reg.Office No.3,

Victoria Road Bangalore.

Rep.by its Managing Director.

2 . DTDC Courier Regional Office,

Door No.43/1602 Opp.Railway Station Road

Cochin, Rep. by its Regional Officer.

3 . The Manager/Proprietor DTDC Courier,

Kallarkootty Road Adimali.

(Whole by Adv: Binu Mathew and Adv. K.M.Sanu )

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant was a SC promoter on contract basis renewable every year. For getting the contract renewed, the complainant sent the renewal application on 06/08/16 through the third opposite party. The third opposite party received the cover addressed to the District Officer, District Development office of SC, Moolamattom. The third opposite party received the cover and issued a receipt having No.23309271 and the complainant paid Rs.25/- to the third opposite party as their service charges. At the time of registering the envelop, the opposite party assured that the cover will be delivered to the addressee on the next day itself. After 2 days the complainant enquired that same with the addressee's

(Cont.....2)

-2-

office and he came to know that the cover containing the application for renewing his job has not delivered to the addressee. Thereafter the complainant contacted several times to the opposite parties but the opposite parties neither delivered the registered article to the addressee and returned it to the sender. Hence the complainant could not attend the interview which was conducted on 08/09/16. Due to that the complainant could not continue his job as a SC promoter. Having a very good track- records complainant is eligible for continue his job till the age of 60. Due to the non- delivery of application form complainant lost a monthly income of Rs.7000/-, it caused much mental agony and pain and financial loss to the complainant.

 

The complainant lost his job due to the dereliction of duty and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are bound to compensate the loss of income of Rs.7000/- per month till his age of 60 and it amounts to Rs.10 Lakhs. For that purpose complainant issued a registered legal notice to the opposite parties on 15/11/16 but the opposite parties failed to respond it even after its acceptance.

 

Hence the complainant filed this petition alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties for getting relief such as to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 10 Lakhs as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as cost to the complainant.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version contenting that the opposite parties are not aware of the whereabouts of the complainant and sending of application for renewal of his job through the third opposite party is denied. The complainant has made such averment without producing any document or shippers' s copy of the consignment leaf containing the consignment note number or the Airway bill number.

 

If the consignment bill or the Airway bill is issued by the opposite parties company with an Alphabet not merely in numbers.

 

The opposite parties further contented that the allegation that the complainant could not attend the alleged interview held on 08/09/16 due to any

(Cont.....3)

-3-

alleged default on the part of the opposite party are denied. Even according to the complainant he was after 2 days aware that the alleged consignment containing the so-called application couriered by him did not reach the SC officer, Moolamattom. Therefore the complainant could have taken appropriate steps for submitting another application immediately. The opposite parties cannot be held liable for the fault of the complainant himself. It is denied that the consignment allegedly booked by the complainant contained any application form as alleged. Hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation or cost from the opposite parties.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of documents. The documents such as copy of legal notice dated 15/11/16, AD cards and postal receipt, copy of information received from District SC Development office, original receipt issued by the third opposite party are marked as Ext.P1 to Ext.P4. Mr. R.Reghu, District Development Officer, for Scheduled Caste examined as PW1 and list of candidate attended the interview, and application form of candidate are marked as Ext.X1 and Ext.X2.

 

From the opposite parties side, the third opposite party was examined as DW1. Ext.R1 and Ext.R2 were marked. Ext.R1 is the format of invoice and Ext.R2 is the copy of resolutions of the Board of Directors of the opposite party company.

 

Heard both sides,

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The Point:-We have heard the counsel for both parties and had gone through the records.

 

It is an admitted fact that opposite parties send an envelop addressed to the officer, SC office, Moolamattom through the third opposite party courier service on 06/08/16 and in return the third opposite party issued Ext.P4 receipt

(Cont.....4)

-4-

for the acceptance of same, by charging Rs.25/- as courier service charge. It is also admitted that the envelop neither delivered to the addressee nor returned to the complainant/sender. This fact was clearly admitted by the DW1, the Manager of the third opposite party in his deposition, before the Forum. It is also an admitted fact that before approaching this Forum complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties 1 to 3 on 15/11/16, and as per Ext.P2 it is seen that all the notices are accepted by the respective opposite parties. Even after the acceptance of the legal notice, opposite parties 1 to 3 has not cared to enquire the matter at least to trace out how the consignment is missed, or why it was not delivered to the addressee.

 

The opposite parties 1 to 3 in their reply version contented that, the complainant is failed to produce the copy of application and it is doubtful that whether the cover contains such an application etc. This type of contention raised by the opposite party is clearly shows that they have least bothered about the loss of article, which the public entrusts them.

 

In the present case, even though the complainant failed to produce any evidence to show that whether he was an SC promoter or he received Rs.7000/- per month as remuneration from the department, it is the bounder duty of the opposite parties to provide better service to the public. Here the complainant entrusted the envelope to the third opposite party under a genuine impression that the envelop will be deliver it to the destination within 24 hours. Hence he failed to enquire about it till the date of interview ie, 06/08/16. When he was not called for the interview he enquired the matter and he came to know that the envelop which was entrusted to the opposite party has not delivered to the addressee.

 

It is very surprising that, this envelop has not returned to the sender and even after accepting the legal notice, and the notices from this Forum, opposite parties has not taken any effort to trace out actually what happened this envelop. If the opposite parties can trace it out, and produce it before the Forum, it can be

opened and find out what it is the content. Till then we can believe the pleadings of the complainant that the envelop contain the application of renewal of his job. More over opposite parties has not a care that the cover is not addressed to the

(Cont.....5)

-5-

SC development officer, Moolamattom. Further opposite parties has not denied the issuance of Ext.P4 consignment receipt. On perusing the booking receipt it is seen that most of the coloumn are blank and no details of the packed articles have been given. It is seen that opposite parties received Rs.25/- as Risk charge. Thus this is clearly an unfair trade practice which has been adopted by the opposite parties and even if this is due to the mistake of some employees of the opposite parties company, the company would be liable on the same on the principles of viearious liability. Due to this unfair trade practice, the complainant has suffered a lot and thus the complainant is required to be compensated for this unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite parties.

 

Since the opposite parties failed to produce the envelop if it is unserved before the Forum and find out its contents, we are of a firm belief that the envelop contain the application for the renewal of the job. Even though the complainant failed to produce any evidence showing that he was a SC promoter and he earned Rs.7000/- per month, we can consider his pleading to some extent.

 

In the fact of the circumstances of this case, we deem it appropriate to allow a compensation of Rs. One Lakh to be paid by the opposite parties 1 to 3 to the complainant for their unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint allowed.

 

The Forum directed the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly pay Rs. One Lakh as compensation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which and interest @ 12% per annum shall be payable by the opposite parties from the date of default till its actual payment. Opposite parties are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant within the above said period.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of October, 2019.

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P. (MEMBER)

 

(Cont.....6)

-6-

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - R.Raghu

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Sajeev Gopinath

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of legal notice dated 15/11/16

Ext.P2 - AD cards and postal receipts

Ext.P3 - Copy of information received from District SC Development office

Ext.P4 - Original receipt issued by the third opposite party

Ext.X1 - List of candidate attended the interview

Ext.X2 -A application form of candidate

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - The format of invoice

Ext.R2 - The copy of resolutions of the Board of Directors of the

opposite party company.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT