Tripura

West Tripura

CC/80/2016

Sri Subhas Sikdar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Kolkata Office & Agartala Office. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

05 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-  80 of 2016 

Sri Subhas Sikdar,
S/O- Late Sailesh Ch. Sikdar,
Datta Kuthir Lane, Krishnanagar Main Road,
P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
Tripura West.                ..…..…...Complainants.

           VERSUS

1. DTDC Kolkata Office,
DTDC Bhawan, 
Raghunathpur, VIP Road,
Kolkata- 700059.

2. DTDC Agartala Office,
44, Pranab Bhawan, 
Post Office Chowmuhani,
H.G. Basak Road,
 Agartala- 799001.                ..............Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant    : Complainant in person.
                     
    For the O.P.             : Sri Abhijit Gon Choudhury,
                      Sri Bimal Deb,
                      Advocates.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 05.01.2017

J U D G M E N T
          This case arises on the petition filed by one Subhas Sikdar against DTDC, Agartala and Kolkata Office. Petitioner's case in short is that he sent one important document to kolkata  through DTDC. He handed over the packet containing document on 31.08.16. The receiving clerk of Agartala office confirmed that the document would be delivered to the addressee on 03.09.16. But on 07.09.16 the petitioner came to learn from the addressee over telephone that the document was not delivered to him. By such information he was shocked and went to the office of DTDC at Agartala on 08.09.16. The Agartala office assured him to give information. But no information given. He again visited on 10.09.16 and then they told that it was delivered to security personal of flat. But the addressee informed that actually document was not delivered. So again made contact at Agartala office of DTDC on 13.09.16 to impress upon them that the matter was very important. DTDC sent the Email on 15.09.16 informing that it the document was delivered on 07.09.16. Again and again he called DTDC office at Agartala and it was informed on 15.09.16 that actually the packet was delivered to the security of the flat. Addressee finally received the packet on 15.09.16. The purpose for registration of the flat for which the document was sent was frustrated. Petitioner suffered immense loss because of the deficiency of service of DTDC. He suffered mental pain, agony due to this deficiency of service. Petitioner claimed Rs.10,000/- for delayed registration and also Rs.10,000/- as compensation.
            O.P. DTDC, Agartala office appeared, filed W.S. denying the claim. It is stated that security guard of the flat did not allow the DTDC personal to meet the addressee. So the packet was delivered to the security personal for delivery to addressee. It was informed that the packet was delivered on 07.09.16. Email was sent to the petitioner. There was no deficiency of service. 
        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up determination;
        (I) Whether there was delay in transmission of the packet containing important document of the petitioner causing loss and harassment to the petitioner?
        (II) Whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation or any other relief?
         Petitioner produced the photocopy of receipt and also the statement on affidavit.
        O.P. produced the photocopy of receipt of packet by security guard. O.P. declined to give any other evidence.
        On the basis of evidence before us we shall now determine the points.
                Findings and decision;
        It is admitted and established fact that complainant booked the packet item on 31.08.16. It is also admitted and established fact that packet was delivered to the security guard of flat on 07.09.16. The packet was expected to be delivered on 03.09.16. There was 4 days delay but delivery was not to the addressee on 07.09.16 but the security guard of the housing Complex. Petitioner stated that the Cell phone number of the addressee and the petitioner was given to the DTDC. So, the DTDC personal had the opportunity to talk with the petitioner or addressee over telephone to hand over the packet item on 07.09.16. But he neglected to do so. He handed over the same on 07.09.16 and did not inform the petitioner that due to resistance of the security guard he could not deliver the article to the addressee even on 07.09.16. O.P. stated that it was the fault of security guard who by mistake did not deliver it to the addressee but delivered it on 15.09.16. In this way opposite party tried to shift its responsibility to the security guard. But actually it was his duty to deliver the item to the addressee not to security guard. Petitioner stated that on earlier occasion the DTDC personal delivered the item in the same flat to the addressee. This time DTDC was prevented to do so as stated. But he failed to report it to the DTDC or to the complainant. Due to his negligence the addressee actually  got the item after 12 days delay on 15.09.16 so the registration could not be done because of this delay. This is not only simple mistake but gross negligence.   
            The DTDC courier service is supposed to transmit the article, letter, document speedily. People have much trust on it for quick delivery of article. But that trust was shattered by such negligence of DTDC personal. As per the principles of vicarious liability DTDC authority can not avoid the responsibility for the negligence of their servant who delivered the item negligently to a security guard not to the addressee. This is deficiency of service by DTDC who made 12 days delay in delivery of an important document necessary for registration of the flat. Petitioner had to go to the Agartala office of DTDC 4 times. He made several phone calls  and suffered because of this deficiency of service.  He is therefore entitled to get compensation for such a negligence delay in transmission of important document. Petitioner claimed Rs.10,000/- for such delay in registration for the want of important document. We consider that such loss was suffered by him and he is entitled to get it. For mental suffering anxiety agony for delayed service he is entitled to get Rs.5000/-. In total he is entitled to get Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service of DTDC. No other cost is allowed. Both the points are decided accordingly.
            In view of our above findings over the two points this petition is disposed. We direct opposite party DTDC to pay compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner for their deficiency of service.  Payment is to be made within 2 months from today. If it is not paid petitioner is entitled to get interest 9% P.A. from date of judgment till date of payment. Supply copy of the judgment to the petitioner and opposite party free of cost.     
                       Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.