Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/98/2016

Vipin Ranwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC - Opp.Party(s)

In person

07 Feb 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                               

                                                                      Complaint No.:98 of 2016.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 16.05.2016.

                                                                      Date of Decision:28.03.2017

 

Vipin Ranwa son of Late Sh. Vidhan Singh son of Dev Karan permanent resident of VPO-Morka Tehsil Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani living presently at H.N. 47 Hospital Campus, Bhiwani.

 

                                                                                ….Complainant.

                                                                                          

                                        Versus

1. DTDC Courier Office Shop No. 38 Improvemental Trust Market Bhiwani through its authorized signatory/proprietor.

 

2. DTDC Courier B-101 Phase 1 Industrial Area Naraiana, New Delhi.

 

3. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. Corporate Office DTDC House No. 3, Victoria Road, Bangalore 560047, Karnataka through its head/owner.

 

                                                                 …...Opposite Parties. 

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.

 

 

BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

                  Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member

                  Mrs. Sudesh, Member

        

 

Present:- Complainant in person.

     Shri Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER:-

 

Rajesh Jindal, President:

 

         

                    The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had sent a parcel consisting of a mobile handset and accessories costing Rs. 15000 and very valuable mobile data in form of pictures and documents through DTDC courier shop no Improvemental Trust Market Bhiwani/OP no. 1 on 12.04.2016 vide receipt no. Z85962597 to a known loknath poddar 19 RGM Kolkata West Bengal by paying the asked amount of Rs. 180/- and the package was to be delivered within a week.  It is alleged that after a week of waiting for the parcel to be delivered the parcel would not delivered at the destination.  It is alleged that after regular visits to OP no. 1 and calls to Ops no. 2 & 3 but to no avail.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, harassment and depression. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such he had to file the present complaint.

2.                 On appearance, the OPs filed written statement alleging therein that after receiving the complaint the matter was duly investigated and it was found that the consignment which was forwarded by taking all due care and cautions which the company takes in its ordinary course of business but even after that same was lost in transit and information thereof was conveyed to the complainant.  It is submitted that in the inquiry it was found that the consigned was booked without declaration of contents and value and even without insurance there the request for the compensation was turned down.   Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the  complainant has tendered into evidence document  Annexure C-1 alongwith supporting affidavit.

4.                In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence document  Annexure R-1.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the parties. 

6.                 The complainant in person reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that the mobile handset in question with accessories was sent back by the complainant to the supplier because the same was defective, through OP no. 1 and paid Rs. 180/- as courier charges.  The complainant submitted that his parcel did not reach at the destination.  The complainant visited the Ops several times and also contacted to Ops no. 2 & 3 telephonically.  He submitted that despite his repeated requests, the Ops did not deliver the parcel in question to the addressee.

7.                 Learned counsel for the  OPs reiterated the contents of reply.  He submitted that at the time of booking of the consignment the complainant did not disclose the contents of the consignment nor he declared the value of the articles.  He also not got insured the consignment.  He further submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the consignment note the liability of the Ops is restricted upto Rs. 100/- only.  Learned counsel for the Ops relied upon the following judgments:-

I       Airpak Couriers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus S. Suresh I 1994 CPJ 52 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

 

II      M/s Bluedart Courier Service & Anr. Versus M/s Modern Wool Ltd. III (1993) CPJ 308 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

 

III     Airpak International Pvt. Ltd. Versus K.P. Nanu & Anr. III 1996 CPJ 156 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi.

 

8.                We have perused the record carefully.  Admittedly, the consignment in question was booked by the complainant through OP no. 1 and the same has been lost in the transit.  The counsel for the OPs contended that the liability of the Ops is restricted upto Rs. 100/-  The Ops cannot take the benefit of the terms and conditions which are printed on the back of the courier receipt of the Ops in a very small font.  Considering the facts of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the Ops to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant being the cost of the consignment booked by him with OP no. 1.  This order be complied with by the Ops within 60 days from the date of passing of this order, otherwise thereafter the Ops shall be liable to pay the interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum on the awarded amount till the date of payment. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 28.03.2017.                                            (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                President,   

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

 

 

                (Sudesh)          (Anamika Gupta)

                 Member.                 Member