DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 28th day of April 2012
Present : Smt.Seena H, President
: Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member
: Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 2/11/2011
(C.C.No.182/2011)
U.P.Ramachandran,
S/o.Late R.U.K.Menon
Malanivas,
Kadukkamkunnam,
Malampuzha (Po),
Palakkad – 678 651
(By Party in Person) - Complainant
V/s
Manager,
DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,
Palakkad Branch,
Palakkad
(By Adv.Binu Mathew) - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.PREETHA G NAIR, MEMBER
The complainant had booked a consignment to Dehradun from the opposite party on 12/10/2011. His son studying in Petroleum University at Dehradun. The complainant sent 4 kg food items to his son through the opposite party for an amount of Rs.700/- The opposite party stated that there is no service by road to Dehradun and that the only service is by Air for an amount of Rs.700/- and the items will be receive within three days. The complainant given the consignment on 12/10/11 to the opposite party. But the goods delivered only on 18/10/11 to the complainant’s son. Thereafter the complainant had made several phone calls to enquire about the delivery of the goods. The goods were not delivered within 3 days and that became not useful to his son. The acts of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.800/- as loss of goods and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite party stated that perishable items like edible / food items are as a matter of policy not accepted for carriage and these are restricted items as per the terms and conditions of carriage. The allegation in the complaint that the opposite party informed the complainant that there is no service by road to Dehradun and the only service is by Air is false and denied. The delivery of the consignment on 18/10/11 was made within the normal stipulated time period for delivery of items by surface. There is no delay in delivery, loss or damage to goods as alleged. Moreover the consignee had accepted the consignment without making any complaints, therefore the complainant is now stopped from raising such false belated allegations. It is denied that the complainant had made several phone calls to enquire about the delivery of the goods or that he had to suffer any mental agony on account of the same. It is contended that the complainant never approached the opposite party with any complaint. Opposite party admitted that the complainant had booked a consignment to Dehradun bearing consignment number R05372983 on 12/10/11. The consignment was weighing 3.8 kg. and the chargeable weight for 4 kg i.e. Rs.700/- was collected from the complainant towards courier / freight charges by surface mode. The consignment was booked as 1 piece non document consignment, which was booked for shipment as express surface cargo. The complainant had not declared the contents of the consignment nor paid risk surcharge of 2% on declared / invoice value. Therefore the liability of opposite party if at all any is limited to Rs.100/- as per the terms and conditions of carriage. The allegation of the complainant that the value of the consignment was Rs.800/- is without evidence and false. Hence the opposite party prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.
Both parties filed chief affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 marked on the side of opposite party. Matter heard.
Issues to be considered are
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party ?
2. If so what is the relief and cost ?
Issue No1 & 2
We perused relevant documents on record. Admittedly complainant had booked a consignment to Dehradun from the opposite party on 12/10/11 and paid Rs.700/- Ext.A1 is the copy of consignment bearing No.R05372983. According to the opposite party perishable items like edible / food items are as a matter of policy not accepted for carriage and these are restricted items as per the terms and conditions of carriage. The opposite party had not produced evidence to show that they inspected the consignment before sending to Dehradun. The opposite party accepted the goods and delivered to Dehradun. The complainant stated that he approached the opposite party to send the food items to his son. No contradictory evidence produced by the opposite party. Normally people approached the courier service to deliver the items as early as possible. In the present case also the complainant approached the opposite party to send the food items to his son as early. In Ext.A1 no where stated the time limit to deliver the goods to Dehradun. The opposite party has not produced evidence to show that 6 days time was needed to deliver the goods to Dehradun. The complainant claimed Rs.800/- for the loss of goods.
According to the complainant the food items sent to his son was not useful as it was delivered within 6 days. The opposite party has not produced evidence to show that they had inspected the goods before the delivery. The opposite party has not produced evidence to show that they informed to the complainant that food items are restricted. The complainant has not produced evidence to show the cost of food items. According to the opposite party the delivery of the consignment on 18/10/11 was made within the normal stipulated time period for delivery of items by surface. No documentary evidence produced by the opposite party to show the normal period.
In the above discussions we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. In the result compliant allowed. We direct the opposite party to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with loss of goods and pay Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of April 2012.
Sd/-
Seena H
President
Sd/-
Preetha G Nair
Member
Sd/-
Bhanumathi.A.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of courier receipt bearing No.R05372983
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Ext.B1 – True copy of consignment note bearing No.R05372983
Cost Allowed
Rs.500/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.
