Haryana

Kurukshetra

25/2018

Sanjeev Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Apr 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.25 of 2018.

                                                     Date of institution: 01.02.2018.

                                                     Date of decision: 30.04.2019.

 

Sanjeev Kumar son of Sh. Satpal Singla, resident of House No.92, Ward No.1 Paras Enclave, Jhansa road, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

…Complainant.

                        Versus

1. D.T.D.C. Courier & Cargo Limited Sahil Courier Service Shop No.3, near Telephone Exchange Mohan Nagar, Kurukshetra 136118.
2. Balaji Sports near Old Bus Stand Kurukshetra.
3. DTDC Express Limited, Regd. Office No.3, Victoria Road, Bengaluru- 560047.

….Opposite parties.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. Sandeep Dandyan, Advocate for complainant.   

                Sh. B.S. Walia, Advocate for opposite parties no.1 and 2.

Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Advocate for opposite party No.3.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sanjiv Kumar against DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that on 8.1.2018 complainant sent a courier through opposite party no.1 for which op no.1 charged an amount of Rs.80/- from complainant but till date the complainant is not known about the said courier. That there were original documents of the vehicle in the courier and now the ops are not giving any answer. It is further alleged that the persons to whom the complainant sold the vehicle are harassing the complainant mentally. Hence, this complaint.

3.             Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed reply resisting the complaint. It is submitted that complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is express provision provided in the terms and conditions mentioned on the overleaf of the consignment note. It is clearly mentioned on the consignment note itself that “Please refer to only terms and conditions which are printed overleaf of this consignment note before tendering a shipment to DTDC”. Clause 25 of the terms and conditions clearly lays down that in case of any dispute, the matter will be referred to the arbitration of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by the sender and the other by the DTDC. It is further submitted that as per clause 5 the liability of the DTDC for any loss or damage to the shipment will be strictly limited to Rs.100/- for each shipment, which items include all documents or parcels consigned through DTDC by the shipper. It is further submitted that answering ops have already delivered parcel in question to the complainant. It is further submitted that parcel was booked in Kurukshetra branch by the complainant for the delivery to Ambala. The said parcel was successfully delivered on 9.1.2018 at Ambala as stated in the tracking report of the said courier company. The complainant has cooked up false case in order to ruin the good reputation of the DTDC courier services and also to obtain financial benefit. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.

4.             Learned counsel for complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A and document Ex.C1. On the other hand, ops tendered affidavits Ex.RW1/A, Ex.RW2/A and documents R1 to Ex.R25.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant sent original documents of the vehicle through courier service of ops on 8.1.2018 to Ratia but the courier was not received at the said address. When the complainant got status of the courier through online, it was shown that courier has reached Ambala. He has further contended that complainant approached the ops to know about documents sent through their courier but they did not listen him and did not give any status report of the courier about receiving of courier from Ambala to Ratia. He has further contended that Mahender Singh to whom the vehicle was sold by complainant has returned the vehicle to him for non delivery of the documents and now he is pressurizing him to give back his money due to which the complainant remains under mental tension and has suffered financial loss. Ld. Counsel for complainant prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the ops have contended that complainant has not got insured the items to be sent through courier service of ops by paying extra amount. He has further contended that courier has been successfully sent at Ambala. He has further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as there is a specific clause 25 in the terms and conditions of the company that in case of any dispute, the matter shall be referred to the arbitrator and prayed for dismissal of complaint.  

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.

9.             From the receipt of the courier dated 8.1.2018 of DTDC, it is evident that complainant sent courier through ops at Ratia for which an amount of Rs.80/- was charged from complainant by ops. From the own pleading of ops and tracking result, it is evident that courier was delivered at Ambala but from Ambala, the courier did not reach at Ratia and was lost. The ops cannot be absolved from their liability by simply saying that in case of any loss to the shipment, their liability is limited to Rs.100/- as complainant has not got insured the items being sent in the courier. There were documents in the courier and there was no reason for getting insured the same by the complainant through ops. Moreover, the ops have not averred that they asked the complainant to get insured the documents to be sent through courier but the complainant refused to do so. So, it cannot be said that complainant was made aware about the insurance. It is also not proved on record that all the terms and conditions of the courier company were disclosed to the complainant. Further mentioning of clause regarding Arbitrator in the terms and conditions does not debar the complainant to get redressed his grievance through this Forum as it is an additional remedy available to the complainant. So, it is proved on record that original documents of the complainant were lost by the ops which were sent through courier of the ops and they have caused deficiency in service and financial loss to the complainant.

10.            In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.:  30.4.2019.

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Neelam)                   (Sunil Mohan Trikha)        

        Member                             Member