Punjab

StateCommission

A/268/2015

DTDC Courier - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurdip Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Harpal Singh Taragarh

27 Apr 2016

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,                                 PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.268 of 2015

 

                                                Date of Institution: 11.03.2015

                                                Date of Decision:  27.04.2016

 

1.      DTDC Courier SCO 11, Phase 3-A, SAS Nagar, Mohali

2.      DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., DTDC House 3, Victoria Road,    Banglore, (Head Office DTDC) through their Attorney Rajeev Chandan).

 

                                                                Appellants/Opposite parties

                             Versus

 

          Gurdip Singh s/o Sh. Puran Singh R/o H.No.1672, Phase-5,   SAS Nagar, Mohali         

                                                                                                                                                                                         Respondent/Complainant

         

First Appeal against order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Mohali.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.H.S.Guram, Member

Present:-

          For the appellants           : None   

          For the respondent          : Sh.Gurdip Singh in person.

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

         J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          Aggrieved by order dated 29.01.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mohali (in short, the District Forum), the appellants of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint). The District Forum, accepted the complaint of the complainant by directing the OPs to return the amount of Rs.25,380/- along with interest @ 9% per annum and to pay lump sum amount of Rs.1 lac for mental harassment. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the opposite parties now appellants in this appeal.

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments he sent international courier through DTDC Mohali, vide reference no.N95570528 on 15.10.2014  and as such he is 'consumer' of OPs. The complainant has opened a new parlour in the name of Royal & Rich Beauty Services at Singapore, which was to be inaugurated in the festive days of Diwali i.e. on 23.10.2014. The complainant gathered quotations from courier services to send advertisements and invitations to guests, broachers and invitation cards were got printed in India. The complainant contacted OPs in this regard and explained regarding urgency of matter with regard to delivery of the goods at the destination. Mr. Rajiv Manager of DTDC at Mohali assured the complainant that if he paid Rs.270 INR per Kg, then the courier would be delivered within three working days. The complainant got quotations from other cargo service providers, as well which was as low as Rs.50 INR per kg, but delivery of that cargo was not promised to be in time. The complainant preferred services of OPs and sent 93.400 Kg of advertisement material and invitation cards on 15.10.2014, which was to be delivered within 3 working days i.e. by 18.10.2014, through DTDC courier on their promise for timely delivery. The value of the goods sent was Rs.25000 INR, whereas the complainant paid courier cost of Rs.25,380 INR. The complainant tried to get the status of the courier online, but the information was incomplete. When complainant contacted the Manager Mr. Rajiv for the status of the courier on behalf OPs, he replied very rudely that he could not do anything, if it has not reached the destination. The complainant got no information about the goods till 23.10.2014, which was day fixed for inauguration of above said parlour. Only two out of the three packs were delivered late in the evening of 23.10.2014 i.e. on the evening of Diwali and inauguration, after the event was over. The complainant suffered huge monetary loss in the tune of Rs.8,66,380 INR ($18,050 SGD approximately) due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. The complainant has, thus, filed complaint against OPs directing them to return the amount of Rs.25,380 INR the courier charges paid by the complainant for fastest delivery of his goods and amount of Rs.25,000 INR, the costs of invitation cards and brochures for advertisement. The complainant has further prayed that OPs be directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.8,16,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation         

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by pleading that it is not maintainable. It was not admitted that complainant is 'consumer' of the OPs. The consignments were booked for commercial purposes and services were hired by the complainant for commercial purposes only. All terms and conditions of booking of consignment were read over and explained to the complainant and undertaking was given regarding delivery within three days, as pleaded by the complainant in the complaint. On merits, it was averred that the terms and conditions of booking of consignment were read over and explained to the complainant and no undertaking whatsoever was given regarding delivery within three days. The complainant opened Royal & Rich Beauty Service at Singapore for commercial purpose and not for earning his livelihood. The OPs denied that complainant has suffered huge monetary loss in tune of Rs.8,66,380 NR ($ 18,050 SGD approximately) and OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1, affidavit of Surinder Singh son of Ujaggar Singh Ex.C-7 along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajeev Chandan M. Admn at DTDC Office Ex.OP-1/1. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Mohali accepted the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 29.01.2015. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Mohali dated 29.01.2015, the OPs the present appellants, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard respondent in person as none appeared for the appellants at the time of arguments of this appeal. We proceed to decide the case on the basis of its merits. Affidavit of complainant Gurdip Singh Ex.CW-1/1 is on the record. He stated in his affidavit that he opened new parlour in the name of Royal & Rich Beauty Service  at Singapore on 23.10.2014. He sent the invitation cards along with list of invitees and publicity brochure/leaf lets for delivery to consignee for the purpose of inauguration ceremony of his parlour on 23.10.2014. He stated that he booked consignment  with OPs and Mr. Rajiv ensured him to deliver the booked consignment within three working days, provided complainant paid Rs.270 INR per kg,. The complainant paid highest charges, so that delivery could be made within three working days before the time of inauguration of his parlour. He further stated that he booked three boxes of the material for delivery, but he failed to get any positive response regarding the status therefor. He further deposed that only two out of three packs were delivered late in the evening of 23.10.2014 i.e. on the evening of Diwali and inauguration was already over. He stated that he spent huge financial loss to the tune of Rs. 8,66,380 INR ($18,050 SGD approximately) due to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Ex.C-1 is courier receipt and value of goods is Rs.25,000/- , which was booked on 15.10.2014 with actual weight of 93 kg 400 gm for delivery at Sigapore to Palwinder Kaur. Ex.C-2 is summary results for status of consignment. Ex.C-3 is summary results for online status of the consignment. Ex.C-4 is advertisement of  Royal & Rich Beauty Service. Ex.C-5 is quotation for air freight. Ex.C-6 is airway bill. Ex.C-7 is affidavit of Surinder Singh son of Ujagar Singh on the record to the effect that consignment in dispute was packed in front of Anil Kumar on behalf of OPs. He stated that in his presence Mr. Rajeev committed to Mr. Gurdip Singh/complainant that he paid Rs.270/- INR, then the material would be delivered within three working days. OPs relied upon affidavit of Rajeev Chandan as M. Admn at DTDC Office Ex.OP-1/1. He stated that complainant sent consignment for commercial purposes. The terms and conditions of consignment were duly explained to complainant by OPs. He further stated that no undertaking was given to complainant for time bound delivery within three days of the consignment. He further stated that consignment was not insured, whereas consignment of more than value of Rs.10,000/- is to be insured. He further stated that  consignment was not for personal use. The District Forum recorded the finding that there is clear-cut deficiency in service on behalf of OPs. The duty of the OPs is to take proper care and safety of the material in transit, as well as, ensuring the timely delivery of the consignment, as per the instructions of the consignor. The District Forum found OPs deficient in rendering service and awarded the compensation to complainant. We find a specific stand has been taken in written version by OPs that consignment is for commercial purpose and not for personal use by the complainant to earn his livelihood. The District Forum has not touched this point and has not recorded the finding on this point, as to whether the consignment was for personal use to earn livelihood by the complainant or it was for commercial purposes only. The District Forum was expected to record the specific finding on this point, as to whether the complainant falls under the definition of Consumer, as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the CP Act. The order of the District Forum is sub silentio on this point. The District Forum should have decided whether complainant is proved to be 'consumer' or not because a specific plea has been taken by OPs that booking of consignment  was for commercial purposes. So in the circumstances of the case, we find that the order under appeal dated 29.01.2015 cannot be sustained in this appeal.

6.      As a result of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellants and by setting aside, the order dated 29.01.2015 of District Forum Mohali; the case is remanded to District Forum Mohali to record the finding on the basis of existing evidence on record, as to whether complainant is proved to be 'consumer 'of OPs or not. The District Forum should return definite finding, as to whether the booked consignment was for personal use or for commercial purposes.

7.      The parties are directed to appear before District Forum, Mohali on 28.07.2016. Record of District Forum be sent back forthwith, so, as to reach there well before the date fixed.

8.      The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the appellants by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.

9.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 26.04.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

10.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                           (H.S GURAM)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

April 27, 2016                                                             

(ravi)