Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/68/2012

Badireddi Murali Krishna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited - Opp.Party(s)

G. Krishna

19 Jan 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:06-03-2012

                                                                                                Date of Order:19-01-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President   

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                          Monday, the 19^th day of January, 2015.

                                  CONSUMER CASE No.68/2012

Between:-

Sri Badireddi Murali Krishna, S/o Pydithalli,

Hindu, aged 36 years, residing at House

No. A 14/C, Yarada Park Colony,

Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam-530 011.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.M/s. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

   represented by its Authorized Signatory,

   Registered Office No.3, Victoria Road,

   Bangalore-560 047.

2.M/s. DTDC  Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

   represented by its Branch Manager,

   Panampilly Nagar, Cochin-36, Kerala.

3.M/s. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., represented

   by its Branch Manager, Opp: HPCL, Malkapuram,

   Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                       …  Opposite Parties     

                     

          This case coming on 06.01.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G. Krishan, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri P. Ravi Kiran Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 ,2 and 3 and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asked the Forum to pass an award in his favour and against the Opposite Parties1,2 and 3 as follows: 1) To direct the Opposite Parties to replace the damaged L.G Monitor of the same model which was booked under the above consignment with a new one or in the alternative to refund the cost of the monitor i.e., Rs.10,000/- and consignment charges of Rs.2,500/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of booking i.e., 06.08.2011till realization; b) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical strain to the Complainant; c) To pay costs of this Complaint; and d) Pass such other relief or reliefs as the Forum deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

2.     The Opposite Parties 1, 2 and 3 strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

         

 3.      The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that the 1^st Opposite Party is the registered office, the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties are Branch Offices of DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.     The Complainant stated that one B. Prasad, S/o Pydithalli, C/o Radhakrishna, Ambalapeddy, Aluva, Kerala who is working in INS Dronacharya, Cochin, Kerala has booked a L.G. Monitor vide Consignment No. D 06876966 on 06.08.2011 at the office of the 2^nd Opposite Party to be delivered to the Complainant’s address at Yarada Park Colony, Sriharipuram, Visakhapatnam.    The 2^nd Opposite Party charged Rs.2500/- to deliver the above said consignment and the worth of the consignment is Rs.10,000/-, which was mentioned by the 2^nd Opposite Party on the consignment.   The  above said consignment reached Visakhapatnam on 10.08.2011 and the same was informed to the Complainant by the 3^rd Opposite Party through phone.   Immediately the Complainant approached the 3^rd Opposite Party for taking delivery of the above said consignment, but the Complainant was shocked and surprised to see that the L.G. Monitor was in broken condition. As such, he refused to receive the said item.    The Complainant sent mail to the 2^nd Opposite Party at Panampilly on 18.08.2011 bringing the fact of damage of the monitor, but they did not respond properly.   At the time of booking the consignment, the L.G. monitor is in good condition, but during the transport it might be damaged due to careless handling of the item by the staff of the Opposite Parties.   As such, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the cost of the unit i.e., Rs.10,000/- along with consignment charges of Rs.2,500/- to the Complainant.    The Complainant stated that due to the carelessness in transporting the L.G. Monitor by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant suffered a lot mentally and as such he is also entitled for compensation.   The Complainant approached the 3^rd Opposite Party several times and requested to deliver the L.G. monitor in good condition, but they have been postponing the same on some pretext or the other.   The Complainant got issued a Registered Lawyer’s Notice to the Opposite Parties on10.01.2012 calling upon them to replace the damaged L.G. Monitor of the same model which was booked under the above consignment with a new one or in the alternative to refund the cost of the monitor i.e., Rs.10,000/- and consignment charges of Rs.2,500/- along with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of booking i.e., 06.08.2011 besides damages and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.   The Opposite Parties 1 and 3 received the said notices, but neither complied with the demand made in the notice nor sent any reply till date, there is no response from the 2^nd Opposite Party.   Hence, having no other go, except to approach this Forum, the Complainant constrained to file this Complaint.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant filed an affidavit and also written arguments to support his claim.      Exs.A1 to A6 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       On the other hand, the Opposite Parties resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from their counter, that the Complainant not booked the monitor in Open Delivery System and if the consignment is booked in open delivery system i.e., at the time of booking the item will be packed before the Opposite Party after showing the correct item and subsequently the same will be delivered to the consignee after opening of the consignment.   But in this case, the Complainant did not book the consignment in Open Delivery System.    The Opposite Parties have taken utmost care for delivery of consignment and there is no any mishandling/careless handling of the items by the Opposite Parties and there is no evidence to show that the Complainant booked the monitor in good condition and subsequently the same was broken by mishandling.   They further stated that there is no necessity to replace the damaged monitor by the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties need not pay any amount as mentioned by the Complainant in his Complainant and there is no need of paying any compensation by the Opposite Parties and the Complaint is not maintainable under law and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

 

6.       The Opposite Parties filed an evidence affidavit by the 3^rd Opposite Party as well as written arguments to buttress their contentions.    However, no documents are marked for the Opposite Parties.

 

7.       The matter has been treated as heard for both sides.

 

8.       After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that for the Complainant a L.G. Monitor was booked on 6.8.2011 at the office of the 2^nd Opposite Party Rs.2,500/- as charges was paid and the declared value of the consignment is Rs.10,000/-.   This fact is supported by Ex.A1 consignment receipt and also admitted by the Opposite Parties.   It is also an admitted fact that when the consignment reached Visakhapatnam on 10.08.2011, the L.G. Monitor was in broken condition.    The main contention of the Opposite Parties is that as the L.G. Monitor was not booked in Open Delivery System i.e., at the time of booking the item will be packed before the Opposite Parties, after showing the correct item, so the Complainant should have sent a broken L.G. Monitor only as there was no any careless handing by the Opposite Parties herein.    In the circumstances, this contention of the Opposite Parties is irrational.   The facts clearly show that the Complainant declared value of the consignment is Rs.10,000/- and also an heavy amount of Rs.2,500/- was paid as the consignment charges; the allegation, that a broken L.G. Monitor was knowingly booked by paying Rs.2,500/- with a intention to litigate against the Opposite Parties in future, looks strange from any angle in the present case, it is a clear instance of careless handling, of the consignment in question, by the Opposite Parties.   As a result, the L.G. Monitor was broken.    Therefore, we find outright deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   Moreover, for the last 3 ½ years, inspite of numerous requests of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties failed to compensate him properly.   Thus, there is also unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.   So,   the Opposite Parties are bound to pay the declared value of the consignment plus charges with interest from the date of consignment to the date of actual realization.    The Complainant is also entitled to suitable compensation as the deficiency of service-cum-unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties should have caused much physical hardship, financial loss and mental agony to him.   Moreover, as the Complainant is forced to file this complaint because of the deficiency of service-cum-unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, he is also entitled to costs of this complaint.

 

9.       In the result, this Forum directs the Opposite Parties 1,2 and 3 to pay a) Rs.12,500/- (Rupees twelve thousand and five hundred only) with interest @ 9% p.a. from 6.8.2011 till the date of actual realization, b) a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) and c) Costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 19^th day of January, 2014.

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                          Sd/-

President                          Lady Member                           Male Member

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	06.08.2011	Consignment Receipt of DTDC Courier	Original
Ex.A02	18.08.2011	E-Mail letter  with photos	Photo copy
EX.A03	10.01.2012	Registered Lawyer’s Notice addressed by the Complainant’s counsel to Ops	Office copy
Ex.A04	11.01.2012	Postal Receipts 3 (three) numbers	Original
Ex.A05	14.01.2012	Acknowledgement of OP-2.	Original
Ex.A06	11.01.2012	Acknowledgment of OP-3.	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-                                  

                                      -Nil-           

Sd/-                                     Sd/-                                          Sd/-

President                            Lady Member                             Male Member