Orissa

Cuttak

CC/99/2019

Ms Disha Parida - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.D, DTDC Express Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S Parida & associates

05 Sep 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                C.C.No.99/2019

Ms. Disha Parida @ Tejaswini Parida,

D/O:Sri Sandeep Parida,

Resident of 106,Shyamkunj,Khan Nagar,

Ring Road,Cuttack-753012(Odisha).                           ... Complainant.

        

                                                Vrs.

1.        DTDC Express Limited,

Represented through its M.D.

Regd. Office:No-3,Victoria Road,

Bengaluru-560047,Karnataka.

 

2.       DTDC Courier

Represented through its Proprietor,Rajib Jena,

Opp. Nepw A.D.Market Post Office

Near LIC office,Link Road,

Cuttack-753012(Odisha).                                        ...Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    27.08.2019

Date of Order:  05.09.2022

 

For the complainant:                Mr. S.Parida,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1:                      Mr. D.P.Dhal,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.2:                             None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.                                                                                               

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that she had indented a gift item of Rs.40,000/- which was misplaced due to the latches of the O.Ps that could not be located and delivered.  She had booked the said item on 5.3.19 and ultimately had to file this case when the said gift item was not delivered to her.  Thus she by filing this case has claimed the cost of the gift to the tune of Rs.40,000/-, expenses to the tune of Rs.5000/-, a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards her mental agony, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the harassment as sustained by her, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of her valuable time and also a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards her litigation expenses.  Thus, she had claimed a total of Rs.1,55,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% from the date of booking i.e., from 5.32.19 till the final realisation is made.

            She had filed copies of documents showing the indented items thereto as made by her through the O.Ps and the ultimate legal notice as sent by her to the O.Ps.

2.         Out of the two O.Ps, O.P No.2 having not contested this case has been set exparte vide order dt.11.9.19.  However, O.P No.1 has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein he has stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable, there was no deficiency in service rather, the complainant has not approached with clean hands but has suppressed the material facts.  According to the O.P No,1, the complainant though had booked her gift items on 5.3.19 vide consignment No.K1798576 had not declared the contents to be valuable gift items.   The said booking was not insured by the complainant also.  O.P No.1 has disputed as regards to the price of the gift items as calculated by the complainant and according to him only a sum of Rs.100/- can be reimbursed to her as there is no document to show that if the complainant had booked any item worth of Rs.40,000/-, and if she had insured  the said gift item.

3.         Keeping in mind, the averments as made in the complaint petition and that in the written version as filed by the O.P No.1, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

            iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue No.iii.

            Issue no.2 being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

            Admittedly, some items were indented by the complainant through the O.Ps which could not be delivered and rather were misplaced.  The contention of the complainant is that the worth of the missing gift items as booked by her was of Rs.40,000/- whereas it is the contention of the O.P No.1 that she had not declared to have booked any valuable item worth of Rs.40,000/- and had not insured the same.  Be that as it may, one thing is for sure that the articles indented by the complainant through the O.P was misplaced and was not delivered.  Thus, this Commission here unhesitatingly comes to a conclusion that there was infact deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps in this case.  Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.

 

Issues no.i & iii.

            From the above discussions, it can safely be said here that the case of the complainant is undoubtedly maintainable and she is entitled to the reliefs but to a reasonable extent.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is decreed on contest against the O.P No.1 and exparte against O.P No.2.  The O.Ps are found jointly and severally liable.  Both the O.Ps are thus directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards cost of the articles alongwith mental agony caused to her due to the latches on their part together with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 5.3.19 till the total amount is quantified and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

            Order pronounced in the open Court on this the 5^th day of September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                                            

 

 

   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                          President

 

                                                                                   

                                                                                       Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                 Member.