Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/598/2016

Manmohan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s D.T.D.C. Courier Service Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Gurdial Singh

24 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/598/2016
Date of Institution	:	03/08/2016
Date of Decision	:	24/01/2017

 

(1)    Manmohan Singh S/o Late Harbans Singh, R/o Kothi No. 3393, Sector 71, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

(2)    Lieutenant Gursheen Dhillon D/o Sh. Gurinder Singh Dhillon, R/o House No.3393, Sector 71, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…..Complainants

V E R S U S

(1)    M/s DTDC Courier Service Pvt. Limited, through

        [a]    Mr. Harish Kukreja, Proprietor, VEE KAY Associate, SCO No. 1003, 2^nd Floor, Opp. Old ISBT Bus Stand, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh (U.T).

        [b]    Regional Manager, DTDC Express Limited, SCO No. 267, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh – 160023.

……Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:	SH.S.S. PANESAR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SH.S.K. SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Gurdial Singh Sidhu, Counsel for Complainants & Sh.Manmohan Singh, Complainant No.1 in person & as GPA of Complainant No.2
	:	Sh.B.S.Walia, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

 

PER surjeet kaur, member

 

1.         In brief, the complainant No.1 booked a railway ticket for Complainant No.2 bearing No. 57787039, 3^rd AC, amounting to Rs.2435/-, Train No. 15901, Dibrugarh Express, for boarding on 30.11.2015 at 23:55 PM from Bangalore City to Dimapur and handed over an envelope containing the aforesaid ticket to Opposite Party No.1 on 13.11.2015 for sending it to Complaint No.2, who assured to deliver the same by one week earlier to the journey date i.e. 30.11.2015. However, the Opposite Party No.1 failed to deliver the said envelop (consignment) to the Complainant No.2 on or before 30.11.2015, due to which she had to purchase an air ticket for Rs.8099/- from Indigo Airlines for Flight No.6E 433, Seat No.16D, Boarding date 01.12.2015 for journey from Bangalore to Bagdogra Airport (West Bengal) near the destination. From Bagdogra to her duty place, the Complainant No.2 had to make further arrangements by road etc. The Complainant No.1, thereafter, made personal entreaties and repeated visits to the Opposite Parties to settle the matter, but they instead of doing anything positive, put off the matter on one pretext or the other. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainants have filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.         Opposite Parties in their written statement inter alia pleaded that the Complainants are not entitled for any compensation as the Ticket in question was reserved for Complainant No.2 (Seat No. RAC 10 in Bogie No.3A) from Bengaluru City to Dimapur and the Complainant No.2 could very easily travel in the said Train by producing her I.D. and being Army Officer there could have been no difficulty for her in getting duplicate railway ticket from Bengaluru City Railway Station, thus, due to the fault of Complainant No.2 she could not travel in the aforesaid Train. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement by Opposite Parties and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainants filed the replication.
5.         Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by both the sides.
7.         The case of the Complainants is that an envelope containing railway ticket booked for Complainant No.2 amounting to Rs.2435/- could not be delivered to the consignee i.e. the Complainant No.2 and due to this failure on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant No.2 had to spent additional amount of Rs.8099/- to hire the services of Indigo Airlines to reach her desired destination.
8.         The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that the dispute in question should be referred to the Arbitrator and also the present Complaint is barred by limitation as the loss or damage of the consignment as per its terms and conditions should be made within a period of 30 days from the date of tendering the shipment to OP-Company.
9.         After perusing the entire evidence on record, we find that on the one hand, the Opposite Parties are admitting deficiency on their part by indicating Rule 12 of the Carriage by Road Rules, 2011 framed under the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, its liability for loss/damage of the consignment limited to 10 times of the freight charges taken from the Complainant and on the other hand, the Opposite Parties are giving suggestion to the Complainant that she could very easily travel in the train by producing her I.D. card and being an Army Officer there could have been no difficulty for her in getting duplicate railway ticket for her desired destination. The Opposite Parties instead of accepting most genuine claim of the Complainants have raised baseless objections. In this connection, it is clarified that as per Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the remedies under this Act are in addition to any other law. Hence, the objection of going to arbitration instead of the Consumer Forum is not sustainable. Similarly, as per the Consumer Protection Act, the limitation for filing a consumer complaint is two years from the date of cause of action. Hence, Opposite Parties cannot override the law and we are of the opinion that the present Complaint is very well within limitation. Pertinently, after receiving the postal charges from the Complainant, it was the duty of the Opposite Parties to deliver the consignment/ envelope containing the railway ticket to the Complainant No.2 in time, but admittedly, the Opposite Parties failed to deliver the same despite giving full assurance to deliver the same in time. Therefore, the act of Opposite Parties for non-delivering the consignment in time and later adopting non-cooperative attitude by not settling the matter with the Complainants themselves and later, forcing them to get indulged into the present unnecessary litigation, points out towards their unfair trade practice and deficiency in service which certainly has caused physical and mental harassment to the complainants. As such, the Complainants are entitled to receive only railway fare to the tune of Rs.2435/-. But they are not entitled for recovery of air ticket fare, because the Complainant No.2 has rescheduled her journey on her own and no responsibility to pay the air fare can be imposed upon the Opposite Parties. The Complainants, however, are entitled to receive compensation for mental agony and physical pain on account of deficiency in service, besides litigation expenses.  
10.         In the light of above discussion, this consumer complaint deserves to succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed.  The Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

 

(i)    To refund the amount of Rs.2435/-, being the cost of the railway ticket.

(ii)   To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to them.

(iii)  To also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

11.         This order be complied with by Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr. No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(iii) above.
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
24/01/2017	[S.K. Sardana]	[Mrs. Surjeet Kaur]	[S.S.Panesar]
	Member	Member	President
“Dutt”