Manager, DTDC Express Service Counter V/S Seema Bharti - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Karnal

CC/299/2016

Seema Bharti - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, DTDC Express Service Counter - Opp.Party(s)

Gulshan Galhotra

17 Apr 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

Complaint No.299 of 2016

Date of instt. 28.09.2016

Date of decision 17.04.2018

Seema Bharti wife of Arvinder Bharti, c/o office of EPFO, SCO 5-8, Sector-12, Karnal, Permanent resident of House no.847, Saini Vihar, Phase-2, Baltana, Zirakhpur District Mohali (PB)

…….Complainant.

Versus

1.Manager, DTDC Express Service Counter, Shop no.12, opp. Nehru Palace, Karnal.

2. DTDC Express Ltd. Regd. Office, 3, Victoria Road, Begaluru-560047.

..…..Opposite Parties.

Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before Sh. Jagmal Singh……President.

Sh. Anil Sharma………Member

Present Shri Gulshan Galhotra Advocate for complainant.

Shri Manoj Sachdeva Advocate for OP no.1.

OP no.2 exparte.

ORDER:

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that complainant had booked courier through her husband Shri Arvinder Bharti containing Rakhi on 8.8.2016 through DTDC Express Service, Karnal vide booking no.Z 97846529 dated 8.8.2016 well in advance from Raksha Bandhan Festival to her brother Shri Rakesh Kumar son of Shri Jeewan Dass, General Store, Lal Sarak, Hansi. The said courier was booked eleven days before the Raksha Bandhan Festival but till date the same is still undelivered. The complainant had contacted telephone no.01844035444 of DTDC Courier for enquiry about his courier many times but till date no response has been received from OP. Complainant contacted through e-mail to the

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and locus standi and concealment of true facts. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant or her husband has mentioned the wrong address on the envelope of said courier. So, due to incomplete/wrong address the same could not be delivered and the same has been returned to Karnal office. After returning the said envelop, the official of OPs contacted the complainant through telephone and disclosed about the non-deliver of courier and also requested to give the correct address or to received back the same form the office of OP no.1, but the complainant neither provided the correct address nor received back the said courier from the OP no.1. Hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. OP no.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte by the order of this Forum dated 21.4.2017.

4. Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence on 24.10.2017.

5. On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Tarsem Lal Authorized dealer Ex.DW1/A and document Ex.D1 and closed the evidence on 16.3.2018.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7. From the pleadings of parties, it is clear that the complainant booked a courier containing Rakhi through DTDC Express service Karnal vide courier no.Z97846529 dated 8.8.2016 for sending the Rakhi to her brother Rakesh Kumar at Hansi, 11 days before the Rakhi Festival. The complainant alleged that she tried to contact the OPS on phone given on the website of the OPs but till date no response was received. The complainant also contacted the OPs through e-mail but in vain. On the other hand, the OP contended that incomplete address has been mentioned by the complainant on the envelope of the said courier and due to this reason the same cannot be delivered. It is further contended that the same was returned to the Karnal office from where the courier was booked. It is further contended that the complainant had not mentioned any phone number of the addressee as well as of the sender, which could help in finding out the address of the addressee.

8. From the submissions of the parties, the main question of dispute is that whether the courier envelop bears the complete address and telephone number or not? The OP has produced the courier envelop in sealed condition containing the Rakhi on the file. On perusal of the courier envelop, it is clear that neither the phone number of the addressee nor the phone number of sender has been mentioned on it. Moreover, the address of sender was not local address at Karnal from where the courier was booked, so it was not possible for the OP to return the courier envelop to the sender at Karnal. In the address of the addressee the number of the shop of the General Store has not been mentioned. The courier boy has specifically mentioned thrice that the address was not found. When the address was not found, then it was not possible for the OPs to deliver the courier to the addressee. Moreover, the complainant has not produced any such evidence on the file, vide which it can be proved that the OPs had fraudulently and intentionally not delivered the courier. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.

9. In view of the above discussions, we found no merits in the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 16.04.2018

President,

District Consumer Disputes