BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 25 of 2014
Ali Reja Osmani, ……………………………………………………… Complainant.
-Vrs.-
1 DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,
DTDC House No.3 Victoria Road,
Bangalore-560047. O.P No.1.
2. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,
B-101, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Naraiana,
New Delhi-110028. O.P No.2.
3. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,
404/405 DTDC Bhawan, Kaji Nazrul Islam Sarani
VIP Road, Raghunathpur,
Kolkata-700059 O.P No.3.
4. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., (Represented by its Manager)
9/10 Narayan Plaza Market, S.P. Road,
Shillong Patty, Silchar-788001. O.P No.4.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared :- Ali Reja Osmani, complainant self
Mrs. Mousumi Chatterjee, Advocate for the O.Ps.
Date of Evidence……………………….. 22-09-2014, 10-11-2014
Date of written argument……………… 07-04-2014, 19-06-2015
Date of oral argument………………….. 19-06-2017
Date of judgment………………………. 15-07-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Dednath,
- This case is brought against DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., Shillong Patty, Silchar and 3 (Three) others for award of compensation for disservice in respect of delivery of 3 (Three) consignments.
- Brief facts:-
Ali Reja Osmani (the complainant) had send 4 (Four) consignments containing books from Delhi through DTDC Courier Service on 06-11-2013 to the following 4 (Four) addresses.
- CN. No. Z07168941
Tania Abbas Choudhury
C/o- Taramoni Choudhury
G.M.C. Building, Old Lakhipur Road, Silchar
Pin-788001.
- CN. No. Z07168942
Salman Ahmed Rajbarbhuiya,
C/o- Shahnoor A. Rajbarbhuiya,
Opposite Wajid Manzil, Water Works Road, Silchar
Pin-788001.
- CN. No. Z07168943
Aariz Reja Osmani
C/o- Lt. A.F. Golam Osmani
Wajid Manzil, Water Works Road, Silchar
Pin-788001.
- CN. No. Z07168944
Fatima Sofiqua Choudhury,
C/o- Nizam Uddin Laskar
Shri Hitesh Biswas Road, Ambukapatty
(Near Ramanuj Gupta Jr. College)
Pin-788001.
- On 11-11-2013 the consignment of the addressee Tania Abbas Choudhury vide CN. No. Z70168941 delivered to the address at her home but remaining 3(Three) consignment were not delivered at home. Rather on 11-11-2013 the O.P No.4 i.e. DTDC & Cargo Ltd., Silchar franchise office on telephone called the addressees to collect the consignment from the DTDC franchise office, Silchar. Accordingly, the guardians of those addressees collected the consignment on 12-11-2013 from the DTDC franchise office, Silchar.
- Hearing the said incidence, the complainant astonished because the consignment were supposed to be delivered at the address mentioned in the parcels. The purpose of sending the educative books was to give surprise to the addressees and as such the very purpose of sending has been frustrated. Thus, the incidence of negligent and deficient service of the O.Ps caused great mental agony, mental harassment and inconvenience to the complainant. Hence, he prayed for award of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,80,000/-.
- Notice issued to the O.P No.4 by Registered Post. On receiving the notice the O.P No.4 submitted written version. In the W/S stated inter-alia that one parcel has been delivered to the home address of the addressee but 3 (Three) other could not deliver at home due to insufficient address. However, stated that on telephonic information to the addressees the guardians appeared and received the consignment on 12-11-2013.
- During hearing the complainant deposed as P.W-1 and exhibited all relevant documents including receipt for booking of consignments, corresponding letter (e-mail correspondence) etc. The Complainant also submitted deposition of guardian of 3(Three) address viz Sahanur Ahmed Raj Barbhuiya as P.W-2, Wazid Reja Osmani as P.W-3 and Sakir Ahmed Choudhury as P.W- 4 to establish the fact that as per instruction of the O.P No.4 they collected the parcel from DTDC Office, Silchar on 12-11-2013. The O.P No.4 also submitted deposition of Manager of DTDC, Silchar and submitted some documents as Annexure No. I to V which include Delivery Run Sheet and terms and conditions of courier service.
- Both sides submitted their written argument at the ending of the evidence. We have also heard oral argument and perused the evidence on record including all exhibited and relevant documents.
- In this case, it is admitted fact the 3 (Three) consignments/parcel were not delivered at home by the O.P No.4. But the plea of the O.P No.4 is that the home delivery were not possible due to insufficient address. However, the address were insufficient has been expressed by the O.P No.4. As per O.P No.4 in the parcel no lane number and home numbers mentioned, for which the addressees were informed by telephone to collect the parcels from the office of the DTDC, Silchar.
- It is a fact that parcels has been collected from DTDC office, Silchar on 12-11-2013 but the plea of the complainant is that he suffered mentally due to non-extending the service of the O.P No.4 for home delivery. As per him home deliver means delivery to home but the O.P took plea that as per terms and conditions of courier service, delivery means and includes home delivery and/or information to the address regarding arrival of consignment.
- However, in the instant case, it is not required to interpret the word ‘delivery’ because the defense plea is not ticked to the word ‘delivery’ rather insufficient address. If that is the real cause for non-delivery, than it is obvious to say that the O.P took endeavor to deliver the item to proper address. For which in alternative, when contact number is available, the O.P rightly informed the address to telephone to collect the parcels. But in the instant case, the plea is taken by the O.P No.4 that parcels were not delivered to home due to insufficient address. What was written in the address is not expressed by the O.P No.4 in the W/S as well as in the deposition except to say that home number and lane number were not mentioned. However, the complainant has given detail address in the complaint as well as in his deposition. We have gone through the address written in the deposition. The addresses in our opinion are free from any ambiguity rather very clear and any delivery man can reach to the address to tender the parcel without any difficulty. Of course, if the area mentioned in the address is outside the delivery zone of the DTDC, the O.P No.4 must express with documentary support. But in this case no such plea is taken.
- Hence, information giving by telephone to the address to collect the parcel is amounting to deficiency of service. Of course, the O.P No.4 had not been restricted to inform the addressees by telephone to stay in the house at a certain time and date to receive the parcel and if fail to deliver at home than only 2nd option, that is information on telephone may be recourse by the O.P. But the O.P No.4 did not do so. Thus, the O.P No.4 solely liable to pay compensation for deficiency of service. In this case, the complainant prayed for compensation on different heads such as Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and mental harassment, Rs.20,000/- for expenditure incurred by the guardian of the addressees to go the office of the DTDC, Silchar to collect the parcels, Rs.20,000/- for cost of correspondences and Rs.30,000/- as cost of the proceeding. All those amount mentioned by the complainant without supporting Vouchers or Bill. Of course, mental agony is not based on any vouchers or bills but on lumpsum. How the complainant assess and arrived to determine Rs.2,00,000/- is not clear from evidence on record. Hence, in this case applying our prudent mind it is of opinion that a lumpsum amount of Rs.12,000/-(Rupees Twelve thousand) only as compensation on all the above mentioned head are justified amount of compensation. Accordingly, we have awarded compensation of Rs.12,000/-(Rupees Twelve thousand) only for deficiency of service and cost of proceeding of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two thousand) only . Thus, total awarded amount of Rs.14,000/-(Rupees Fourteen thousand) only to be paid by the O.P. No.4 within 45 days from today to the complainant. In default, interest @ 10% P.A. to be fetched on the awarded amount of compensation till realization of the full.
- Accordingly, the case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 15th day of July, 2017.
