IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/29/2018.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
22.02.18 17.05.18 03.04.19
Complainant: Aloke Sahoo
S/O Rajendra Sahoo,
24/A/B/15 Kalikapur Road,
P.O. And P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742101.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. Manager,DTDC Express Ltd.
Register Office At 3 Victoria Road,
Bengaluru, Karnataka,
Pin 560047.
2. Branch Manager,
Berhampore Main Branch, DTDC Express Ltd.
K N Road, Ranibagan, P.O. And P.S. Berhampore,
Dist. Murshidabad,
Pin 742101.
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Joydeep Misra.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party Nos.1&2 : Sri. Diganta Das.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Aloke Sahoo (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Manager, DTDC Express Ltd and Another (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant sent an article through the OP No.2 on 13.10.17 by courier service to one Mr. U.K. Sahoo of Singhbhum being consignment No. F10634684 and sender’s code was KC328. On 30.10.17, the Complainant received a massage in his mobile that the said consignment article is no service area. Thereafter, the Complainant sent an advocate’s letter dated 04.12.17 to the OP No1 regarding the where about of the said consignment by registered post and the OP No.1 received the said notice on 08.12.17 but did not respond to the said notice. The Complainant suffered a great loss for non-delivery of the article which contained valuable and important documents. The cause of action arose on and from 13.10.17. The Complainant prayed for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for deficiency in service and litigation cost.
The OPs put their appearance and filed written version on 20.07.18, contending that the Complainant has no locus standi to file the application and the complaint is not maintainable. It is the specific case of the OPs that the Complainant booked one article on 13.10.17 being consignment No. F10634684 but the article was not insured. The address given by the Complainant was incomplete for which the OPs could not find out the address of the consignee. The OPs were unable to contact the consignee for delivery of the article as the Complainant did not provide any contact number of the consigned. The said consignment was returned back to the Berhampore Branch but the Complainant did not pay any heed to collect the article from the concerned office of the OP No.2 in spite of repeated requests.
The allegations against the OPs are false and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant is a consumer as she hired services of the OP for consideration.
On going through the complaint, written version and other materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant is a consumer in terms of section 2 (I )(d) (ii) of the C.P.Act, 1986 as she hired services of the OP for consideration.
Point No.2
The Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos.3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant booked the consignment for sending it through courier and the OPs neither delivered the consignment to the consignee nor returned the article to the Complainant in spite of repeated requests.
It is the argument of the OPs that the consigned article could not be delivered due to incomplete address of the consignee and the Complainant did not collect the consigned article from the office of the OP No.2 in spite of repeated requests.
Perused the materials on record. It appears from the documents submitted by the Complainant that the Complainant gave his mobile number as noted in the booking slip and also he sent mail to the OPs on 30.10.17. Moreover, the Complainant issued a letter through his Ld. Advocate dated 04.12.17 by registered post, addressed to the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 received the same on 08.12.17. In spite of that the OPs did not respond to the grievance of the Complainant. The OPs have failed to produce
any document to establish that the OPs requested the Complainant to collect his consigned article from the office of OP No.2. It appears from the booking slip for consignment that mobile numbers of the Consignee are noted. The OPs have stated falsely that no mobile number was given for contacting the Consignee. The OPs have not assigned any reason why the consignment was booked if the address of the Consignee was not within their service area.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the materials on record, we are of the considered view that the OPs have deficiency in service as they booked the consignment for delivery to the consignee though the address was not within their service area and did not respond to the grievance of the Complainant for a considerable period.
We think that the Complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- from the OPs for deficiency in service and the Complainant is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 22.02.18 and admitted on 17.05.18. This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No.CC/29/2018 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP with cost.
The OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant for deficiency in service by sixty days from the date of this order.
The OP is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant by sixty days from the date of this order.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
