Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/432/2014

M/s.Practichi Tiwari - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC Regional Office - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Kavitha Rameshwar

11 Jul 2016

ORDER

   Date of Filing :   13.10.2014

                                                                      Date of Order :   11.07.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.432/2014

MONDAY THIS  11^TH   DAY OF JULY 2016

 

Pratichi Tiwari,

W/o. Nishith Tiwari,

No.37/15, 2^nd Main Road,

Kasturba Nagar,

Adyar, Chennai 600 020.                                    ..Complainant

 

                                         ..Vs..

 

1.  DTDC Regional Office,

Rep. by The Branch Manager,

No.A20, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate,

Opposite EB office, Guindy,

Chennai – 600 032.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

DTDC – Or. No.18,

Guru Nanak Complex,

Guru Nanak Pura,

Raja Park Jaipur.

 

3. The Branch Manager,

DTDC Corporate Office,

DTDC House,

NO.3, Victoria Road,

Bangalore 560 047.                                         ..Opposite parties    

 

 

For the Complainant                  :   M/s. N.Kavitha Rameshwar & another       

For the opposite parties             :   Exparte.   

 

 

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.     Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against  the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.87,150/- to the complainant.  

2.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the  opposite parties were not appeared before this Forum and did not file any written version.  Hence the 2^nd and 3rd opposite parties were set exparte on  19.2.2015 and 1^st opposite party was set exparte on 21.8.2015.     

3.       Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, proof affidavit and the documents Ex.A1 to A8 filed by the complainant and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for complainant.

4.     Complainant has stated that  complainant’s tailor one Vishal Sagar Jain who is the proprietor of “Sagar” having his address 517-B/6, Raja Park, Jaipur, had sent a consignment containing  stitched clothes to the 2^nd opposite party for delivering the material / parcel  to the complainant at Chennai under the consignment receipt dated 17.09.2013 Ex.A2.  Since the said consignment was not received by the complainant, on the information made by the complainant her tailor Mr. Vishal Sagar Jain, has intimated the same to the opposite party by letter dated 03.10.2013  under Ex.A3.  On the receipt of the letter the opposite party has informed    that the said parcel is untraceable and they were advised to put in claim in the prescribed form.  On the advice of the complainant, her tailor i.e Mr.Vishal Sagar Jain submitted the claim form for Rs.17150/-, being the cost of the consignment along with the original consignment invoice receipt to the 2^nd opposite party Franchise’s office on 14.10.2013, the copy of the invoice is filed as Ex.A1.  The copy of the claim form is filed as Ex.A4. The opposite party also sent an acknowledgement letter dated 23.10.2013  for the receipt of the  said claim.  Since the said claim has not been settled by the opposite party, email dated 07.11.2013  was also sent, the copy of the same filed as Ex.A6, when the complainant approached the 3^rd opposite party which is the Chennai  branch of the opposite party the complainant was handed over  the letter  of the opposite party dated 25.11.2013 on 07.12.2013 by 3^rd opposite party stating that the claim had been rejected mentioning the reason for the rejection of the claim on the  non compliance of terms and conditions.  The complainant has further stated that the non delivery of the consignment to the complainant who is the beneficiary after receiving consideration by the opposite parties for transporting the same amounts to deficiency of service which has caused the complainant who is the consignee / beneficiary of the consignment, the monetary loss, the mental agony and hardship,  due to non receipt of the said consignment,   since the consignment mentioned clothes were ordered by the complainant and were stitched and sent to her by her tailor through the opposite parties courier service for the purpose of marriage function of the complainant’s family, as such, complainant  has claimed the value of the consignment of Rs.17150/- and also compensation of Rs.70,000/- and with cost  against the opposite parties.

5.     Whereas  there is no contra evidence on the side of opposite parties, since they remained exparte.      

6.     Complainant being the consignee of the complaint mentioned parcel / consignment sent by her tailor / consignor, on the non receipt of the said consignment the complainant being  the consignee  is a beneficiary and considered to be consumer under a consumer Protection Act.  Further the complaint mentioned consignment is to be delivered at Chennai to the complainant’s address, as such, the part of cause of action of the complaint mentioned transaction is within the jurisdiction  of this forum. Therefore the complaint is maintainable before this forum and the same cannot be disputed by the opposite parties.

7.     Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view, that the complainant being the consignee of the complaint mentioned consignment which has been sent by her tailor through the opposite parties courier service for consideration, as per the Ex.A2 the receipt given by the 2^nd opposite party, is duty bound to  deliver the said consignment / parcel to the complainant / addressee mentioned in the parcel.   As submitted by the  learned counsel for the complainant, not only the said parcel non-delivered to the complainant  but also no proper reason for the missing of the said parcel, being explained or stated by the opposite parties despite of the demand made by the complainant and her tailor who has booked the parcel with 2^nd opposite party.  Further  the reason stated for repudiating the claim by the opposite party in letter in Ex.A7 are also not sustainable, since there is no supportive document of proof on the side of opposite party in this proceedings as they were made exparte.  Therefore, we are of the considered view that the  complainant has proved her case and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the  non delivery of the consignment for the value of Rs.17,150/-  which amounts to deficiency of service   and caused monetary loss and mental agony, as such, they are liable to pay compensation  to the complainant are all acceptable.  However considering the claim of compensation made in the complaint a sum of Rs.70,000/- is exorbitant, considering the facts and circumstances the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.10,000/- as just and reasonable compensation. 

8.     Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 17,150/- towards the loss of the consignment,  a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,500/- as litigation charges to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay  a sum of Rs. 17,150/- (Rupees Seventeen thousand one hundred and fifty only) towards the loss of the consignment,  a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as  cost to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above said amount (Rs.17150/- + 10000/- = Rs. 27,150/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment.

                Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  11^th    day  of  July   2016.

 

 

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                           PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-05.09.2013      - Copy of invoice

Ex.A2-17.09.2013      -Copy of Consignment  Receipt

Ex.A3-14.10.2013       - Copy of the Letter to the opposite party

                                 By the Complainant

 

Ex.A4 -14.10.2013     - Copy of Claim from submitted to the 2^nd opposite party 

  

Ex.A5- 23.10.2013     - Copy of Letter from 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A6- 07.11.2013     - Copy of complainants’ email to the 2^nd opposite party

EX.A7- 25.11.2013    - Copy of Letter of the opposite party rejecting the claim

Ex.A8- 05.02.2014     - Legal notice to the opposite parties with acknowledgement

         

Opposite party’s side documents: -  

*

 .. Nil ..          (exparte)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                                         MEMBER-II                                          PRESIDENT.