BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 187/2012 Filed on 14.06.2012

Dated: 15.07.2014

Complainant:

C.R. Jayarajan, O/o Executive Engineer, Central PWD, C.G.O Complex, Poonkulam, Vellayani P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 522.

                                  (Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., Trivandrum Branch, T.C 25/2871, Sreevilas, Mathrubhoomi Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.

    

2. M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., No. 58, MGR Nagar, Anna Main Road, K.K. Nagar, Chennai- 600 078.

 

(By adv. Binu Mathew & S. Reghukumar)

 

This C.C having been heard on 30.06.2014, the Forum on 15.07.2014 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD:  PRESIDENT

The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that complainant’s relative had sent a cover containing important documents to complainant through 2^nd opposite party M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. on 23.05.2012, that on 25.05.2012 the courier agency had informed the sender that the consignment is returned from Thiruvananthapuram office and also requested to collect the same and the sender had collected the same and sent to the complainant with old cover and opposite party’s receipt etc. by speed post which was received by the complainant on 28.05.2012, that opposite party returned the consignment to the sender without any intimation to the complainant.  Though complainant’s mobile number was written in the consignee’s address opposite party had returned the consignment in an irresponsible manner without any intimation to him, that due to the lapses and negligence of the opposite party complainant had lost a great deal on account of non-production of documents in question within stipulated time which resulted in financial loss to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-.  Hence this complaint.

Opposite parties, on being served, entered appearance and filed their version contending interalia that complainant is not a consumer as he has not availed or hired any service for consideration nor is he a beneficiary of any service.  It is true that consignment was booked on 23.05.2012 through 2^nd opposite party at Chennai which is a franchisee of M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., that is a company engaged in the courier/logistics business, that the said consignment was booked by one B. Rethy James from Chennai to one Mr. C.R. Jayarajan (who claims to be the complainant herein) to be delivered at Vellayani, Thiruvananthapuram, that the consignor had neither declared the contents of the consignment nor its nature or value at the time of booking the same for carriage.  An amount of Rs. 38/- was collected by the 2^nd opposite party from the consignor towards service charge from Chennai to Trivandrum.  The said consignment was taken for delivery by 1^st opposite party, the Trivandrum branch of M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. for delivery to the consignee on 24.05.2012, as per the address of the consignee mentioned in the consignment, despite the facts that the address was incomplete.  The post office pin code written on the cover was also incorrect, that on reaching the destination the courier/delivery boys could not personally locate the complainant and therefore contacted the consignee on the mobile phone number as provided by the consignor on the consignment and the said consignee could not be contacted as per the information provided by the mobile cell service provider that the person is ‘not reachable or outside the coverage area’, that after trying to contact the consignee on several occasions on the same day as the person was not reachable, the consignment could not be delivered to the consignee on 24.05.2012.  Thereafter in order to avoid delay in service, the said consignment was immediately returned back by the 1^st opposite party to the consignor at Chennai through 2^nd opposite party, which the consignment was delivered to the consignor on 25.05.2012.  Thus the consignment that was booked from Chennai on 23.05.2012 was taken for delivery on 24.05.2012 at Vellayani and due to non-delivery due to the above said reasons was returned back to the consignor on 25.05.2012, that opposite party had not collected any additional charges for the return of the consignment back to the consignor.  Opposite parties are not at all connected or liable for any happenings thereafter, that there is no lapse, negligence or any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, that complainant has no specific allegation of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in the complaint.  The claim of the complainant is baseless, false and exaggerated and specifically denied.  Complainant is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint.  Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs as claimed?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P4.  In rebuttal opposite party has filed proof affidavit.  Opposite party has not produced any documents. 

Points (i) to (iii):- There is no dispute on the point that a consignment was booked by one Rethy James from Chennai to one Mr. C.R. Jayarajan to be delivered at Vellayani, Thiruvananthapuram on 23.05.2012 through 2^nd opposite party.  According to opposite party the said consignment was taken for delivery by 1^st opposite party at Trivandrum for delivery to the consignee on 24.05.2012 as per the address mentioned in the consignment.  According to opposite party the address of the consignee mentioned on the consignment was incomplete.  The post office pin code written on the cover was also incorrect.  On reaching the destination the delivery boy could not personally locate the complainant and therefore he contacted the consignee on mobile phone number as provided by the consignor on the consignment and the said consignee could not be contacted as per the information provided by the mobile cell service provider that the person is not reachable or outside the coverage area.  Though opposite party contacted the consignee on several occasions on the same day, as the person was not reachable, the consignment could not be delivered to the consignee on 24.05.2012. Thereafter in order to avoid delay the said consignment was immediately returned back by the 1^st opposite party to the consignor at Chennai through 2^nd opposite party and the said consignment was delivered to the consignor on 25.05.2012.  The very stand taken by the 1^st opposite party is that complainant is not a consumer as defined under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) and according to opposite party there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties.  It is admitted that the consignment was sent by one B. Rethy James to one Mr. C.R. Jayarajan.  Ext. P1 is the consignment note which discloses the name of the consignor and consignee.  Normally when opposite parties returned back the consignment to the consignor, the consignor should lodge a complaint against the courier service.  Herein the consignor has no complaint against the opposite parties.  According to opposite party it is the consignor who hired or availed service of the opposite parties for consideration and privity of contract is between the consignor and the opposite party.  There is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite parties.  But it remains the fact that the addressee is the complainant herein.  According to complainant the consignment was sent by his relative from Chennai through 2^nd opposite party to him thereby, he is the beneficiary of the consignment sent by the sender even though the consignee has not paid any consideration for availing the service of the opposite parties.  As per Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) consumer means any person who hires or avails of any services for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services others than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of any such services for commercial purpose).  Here in this complaint the consignor had sent the aforesaid consignment to C.R. Jayarajan, the complainant herein and the complainant is the beneficiary of such services but such services are availed of with the approval of the consignor.  Impliedly, the addressee is the beneficiary of the consignment.  As such we are of the view that complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties.  Complainant has produced evidence by way of proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P4.  Ext. P1 is the consignment note issued by 2^nd opposite party.  A perusal of Ext. P1 reveals the consignment was sent by Rethy James to C.R. Jayarajan, total amount paid by the consignor is Rs. 38/-.  Ext. P1 does not disclose the contents of the consignment or its value.  Ext. P2 is the courier cover marked subject to objection that correction is seen in the document.  Ext. P3 is the speed post cover addressed to C.R. Jayarajan marked subject to objection that the said document is seen corrected.  Ext. P4 is the copy of the attendance roll for the month of May 2012.  The said Ext. P4 does not bear the signature or office seal of the institution.  On perusal of Ext. P2 and P3 it is found that the post office pin code number is corrected.  The very stand of the opposite party is that the post office pin code written on the cover was incorrect.  The said stand of the opposite party has been proved by Ext. P2 and P3.  According to complainant even though the pin code number was wrong it was not at all a problem to trace out the location where the consignment is to be delivered.  According to complainant the said C.G.O complex is not a remote area which is under the jurisdiction of Thiruvananthapuram Corporation.  The returned consignment sent again through speed post by the consignor and the same has been delivered to him in the same address promptly by P& T department.  According to complainant except the pin code number there was no mistake in the postal address.  Generally the courier agencies shall have local persons as delivery boys thereby the statement of the opposite parties that delivery boy could not locate the consignee is a false statement.  According to complainant opposite party has not deputed anybody to deliver the consignment to him.  Though opposite party has filed proof affidavit and complainant insisted for cross examination of the opposite party, opposite party did not turn up for cross examination.  Ext. P1 consignment note specifically mentioned that ‘pin code is a must for proper delivery’.  In the present case in Ext. P2 courier cover and Ext. P3 speed post cover pin code is seen corrected, thereby it can be presumed that the sender had not mentioned the correct pin code.  At the same time no correction is seen made in the address of the consignee except the pin code.  Herein there is no case from the said consignor that consignor had incurred any loss.  There is no allegation that consignor has not received back the consignment nor is there any allegation regarding delay in delivery or loss of consignment, wrong delivery or theft of consignment etc.  Admittedly the sender received back the consignment on 25.05.2012.  According to opposite party even though mobile number was given on the consignment that was not reachable or out of coverage area.  Complainant is of the stand that mobile phone tower is available very near to his office, thereby the question of out of coverage area does not arise.  Further it is to be pointed out that complainant had received the said consignment on 28.05.2012 sent by the consignor through speed post.  Since there is no allegation of loss of consignment, delay in delivery, wrong delivery or theft of consignment and since the consignment is immediately returned back to the consignor without delay by the 1^st opposite party and sender received back the said consignment on 25.05.2012 and consignor has no allegation regarding the service provided by opposite parties we find there is nothing to attribute deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Complainant has not produced any material to show any financial loss due to the action of the opposite parties.  Taking into consideration of all, we find that complaint has no merits at all which deserves to be dismissed. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed.  Parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15^th day of July 2014.

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

          Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

          Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

jb

 

C.C. No. 187/2012

APPENDIX

 

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

          PW1  - C.R. Jayarajan

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Consignment note issued by 2^nd opposite party.

P2     - Courier cover.

P3     - Speed post cover addressed to C.R. Jayarajan

P4     - Copy of attendance roll for the month of May 2012.

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                             NIL

 

 

                                                                                                        Sd/-

PRESIDENT

 

jb