SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) against the Ops alleging deficiency-in-service with a prayer for compensation.
2. The case of the complainant, in a nut-shell, is that on 12.7.2019 he sent two packets from OP No.2 vide consignment No.G-90328379/ 900090328379 weighing 56 Kgs containing valuable books & wearing apparels valued Rs.70,000/- and paid Rs.5,600/- towards charges addressed to House No.217, Basant Vihar Enclave, Maharani Bag Lane, Mohit Nagar, Dehradun, Uttarakhand where his son was staying for his higher study. But the concerned parcel has not yet been delivered to the recipient. On being asked, OP No.1 replied that the parcels have not been traced out. Thus, the complainant tried to track the consignment through the DTDC website and found the status is being shown on 30.7.2019 as out for delivery. But the aforesaid consignments have not been delivered. It is further stated that the Ops have stolen away the consignments and misappropriated the same along with the shipment charges being connived with each other along with some other staff. Finding no other alternative, the complainant served legal notice against the Ops, but they remained silent in the matter. The conduct of the Ops amounts to serious deficiency of service and sheer negligence of duty which caused financial loss and mental agony. Hence, this case.
3. In the present case, the OP No.1 appeared and filed written version whereas OP No.2 neither appeared nor filed version for which he was set ex parte. OP No.1 has specifically stated that the consignment in question has already delivered to the consignee on 19.7.2019 and the consignee has also put his signature in the space provided in the POD copy. It is further stated that the consignee, who is the son of the complainant, may not have intimated the fact of delivery of the consignment to him and kept him in darkness. So, the negligence on the part of the Ops does not arise.
4. The points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether the case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
F I N D I N G S
5. The complainant has filed the consignment receipt dated 12.7.2019 supplied by the OP No.2 which shows that the complainant had deposited two packets weighing about 56 Kgs and for that he had paid Rs.5,600/- towards surcharge. From the consignment tracking report, it is seen that the consignment has not been delivered to the consignee till 30.7.2019. The complainant has also filed the photocopy of legal notice dated 6.9.2019 purported to have been sent against the Ops along with its postal registration receipts. On the other hand, the OP No.1 has not filed a single document to substantiate their case.
6 On a meticulous scanning of the documents produced on behalf of the complainant, it is crystal clear that the complainant had deposited two consignments before the OP No.2 for sending the same to his son in the address given therein and for that he had paid the surcharge fee of Rs.5,600/- on 12.7.2019. But, as alleged by the complainant, the consignment has not yet been delivered to his son. To substantiate his claim, the complainant has filed the tracking report of the consignment which clearly shows that the consignment has not been delivered in favour of the consignee as on 30th July, 2019. On the other hand, OP No.1 has claimed in his version that the consignment has already been delivered to the consignee on 19.7.2019. To strengthen his version, OP No.1 has not produced any document. Therefore, it can safely be held that the consignment has not been delivered to the consignee. That apart, the OP No.1 has not taken any other plea that the consignment has been misplaced to any other address or consignee for which time is required for delivery of the same to the actual consignee. Further, as it is seen from the documents filed on behalf of the complainant, the date of booking of the consignment was 12.7.2019 and before institution of the case the consignor sent legal notice against the Ops on 6.9.2019 i.e. within 180 days, as required under Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 read with Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865. This aspect is also observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation V. B.L.Sharma in First Appeal No.107 of 2001.
7. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant has availed the services of the Ops not for the commercial purpose. The complainant by engaging the services of the Ops sent valuable books and wearing apparels to his son. Thus, it is held that the services were engaged in normal course of business. Therefore, the Ops are liable to pay the value of the consignment.
8. Taking into consideration the mandate of law and in view of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is a consumer, he has cause of action to file the present case and the case is maintainable. Consequently, the complainant is entitled to the compensation, as prayed for.
Hence, it is ordered –
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No.1 and on ex parte against OP No.2. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards the value of the consignment and to return the surcharge fee of Rs.5,600/- with interest @ 9% per annum from dt.12.7.2019 along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and litigation cost within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to realise the same through the process of law.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 5th day of November, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
