| Final Order / Judgement | CC No.1880.2015 Filed on 20.11.2015 Disposed on.24.11.2017 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU– 560 027. DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1880/2015 PRESENT: Sri. H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B. PRESIDENT Smt.L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B. MEMBER COMPLAINANT | | M/s Mfar Constructions Private Limited, A Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered Office at 8-8A, AVS Compound, 80ft.Road, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034, Duly represented by its Authorized Signatory Mr.Sampathraj.G. |
V/S OPPOSITE PARTY/s | 1 | M/s DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, having its registered office at DTDC House, No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-560047, Duly represented by its Authorized Signatory. | | 2 | Mr.Subhasish Chakraborty, Cofounder, Chairman and Managing Director M/s DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited, having its registered office at DTDC House, No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-560047. | | 3 | Ms.Arpita Chakraborty Mittra, Director of Customer Care & Eastern Region and Director, M/s DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited having its registered office at DTDC House, No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-560047. | | 4 | Mr.Suresh Kumar Bansal, Director of International & Marketing & Director M/s DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited having its registered office at DTDC House, No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-560047. | | 5 | Mr.Abhishek Chakraborty, Director, DTDC Ltd., M/s DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited, Having its registered office at DTDC House, No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-560047. | | 6 | Ms.Tapasi Chakraborty, Director, DTDC Ltd., M/s DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited having its registered office at DTDC House, No.3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-560047. | | 7 | DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd., Kakkad Road, South Bazar, Kannur-670002. |
ORDER BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT - This Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 20.11.2015 U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and praying to pass an Order directing the Opposite Parties to refund a sum of Rs.25/- booking the Courier along with 10% p.a. from 13.07.2015, to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency of service by the Opposite Party, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and other reliefs.
- The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:
In the Complaint, the Complainant alleges that on 13.07.2015 the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1’s and verified whether they have services to Kannur, Kerala. Upon verification, the Opposite Party No.1’s office informed that they have services to Kannur and also the same will be delivered within 2 working days. After assurance given by the Opposite Party No.1’s. The Complainant placed an Order for delivery of Consignment as per Consignment Bearing No.B23517144, which had to be delivered to M/s Care and Cares Society, HQ Hospital, Ayikkara PO, Kannur, the Complainant utilized the Courier facility provided by the Opposite Party No.1 on 13.07.2015 to send as Zakath for Eid for various institutions across India, as it is a custom to be followed under the Mohammadan Law. Upon such placing of the Courier it also made the requisite fee of a sum of Rs.25/-. The said amount was paid by way of cheque towards one time payment for the Month of June & July, 2015 to Malnad Business Services, Authorized Franchise of DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited. The Complainant did not receive any email or sms from M/s Care and Cares Society for receipt of the Zakath as required for EID even after six days. Therefore, the Complainant contacted the Bangalore Office and they informed that the courier had reached Kannur as per the online tracking results. Accordingly, the Complainant requested M/s Care and Caress Society to kindly follow up with the Opposite Parties office which was situated in Kannur. To his shock and surprise the Opposite Party No.7 vide its letter dt.28.07.2015 addressed to M/s Care and Caress Society informed and certified that the Consignment No.B23517144 was misplaced in their network and inspite of several attempts to trace the consignment, it could not find out the consignment and hence the same is deemed to be lost. The Complainant upon being informed by the same ran around making enquiries in the Bangalore Office of Opposite Party No.1 but they were helpless, which is self-explanatory vide email dt.31.07.2015 addressed by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant. The Complainant issued a Legal Notice dt.03.08.2015 pointing out that the courier contained valuable documents and was humiliated by M/s Care & Caress Society for non-receipt of the cheques as it was a customary norm under the Mohammadan Law. Further, the Complainant requested to deliver the article within 3 days to M/s Care & Caress Society otherwise it would amount to deficiency of service and it would be constrained to take suitable legal action. Upon receipt of the notice dt.03.08.2015, the Opposite Party NO.1 did not bother to either reply or look into the problem caused due to its failure. The Complainant issued another notice through its lawyers M/s R.C.Associates dt.04.09.2015 calling upon the Opposite Party No.1 and its Directors to pay Rs.1,00,000/- being the cost towards loss and damage and further Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and reputation within 15 days from the receipt of the said notice, as the Opposite Party No.1 had failed to provide its services and due to the inattentive and irresponsible attitude of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant had to suffer irreparable damage and severe mental agony and also had to face disrepute and incur huge losses. The Opposite Party has not replied to the Legal Notice. Hence, this complaint. - Even though notice was served on Opposite Party No.2 to 7, but failed to put their appearance. Hence, the Opposite Party No.2 to 7 placed ex-parte.
- In response to the notice, the Opposite Party No.1 put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version. In the version of Opposite Party No.1 pleaded that the Complainant do not disclose any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party so as to bring the complaint of the Complainant within the purview of the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant is frivolous and is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Opposite Party No.1 are not aware and denied that the Complainant had sent his Zakath for Eid to M/s Care & Caress Society. The consignment tracking details pertaining to consignment shipment No.B23517144 of the Complainant, which reveals that the consignment of the Complainant was forwarded from Madiwala Branch, Bangalore to Cannanore Branch on 13.07.2015 and it was misplaced during transit between Cochin to Cannanore the “Shipment is under Investigation”. The Complainant had booked the consignment bearing No.B23517144 on 13.07.2015 through the Branch of the Opposite Party No.1 and the said consignment was destined to Cannanore. It is an obligation on part of the Complainant to get his consignment insured with the Opposite Party to protect his interest, in the event of any loss or damage that may cause to the consignment. In the instant case, the Complainant had not disclosed the content of the consignment and not declared the value of the consignment nor insured his consignment by paying risk coverage charges of the consignment. It is under these circumstances no liability should be fastened on the Opposite Party No.1 for Complainant’s consignment. If the sender fails to get his consignment insured, at the time of booking the consignment, the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to pay Rs.100/- only for loss of the consignment, as per Clause-14 of the terms and conditions as enumerated in the consignment note, for the service opted by the Complainant. The Complainant had not disclosed the content of the consignment nor declared the value at the time of booking the consignment. In absence of any risk coverage, the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation or claim it was also informed by the Opposite Party No.1 to the Complainant at the time of booking the consignment, but the Complainant had neither disclosed the content nor declared the value of the same. As per the terms and conditions as enumerated on the consignment note if a sender does not declare the value of the consignment the limit liability shall be limited to maximum of Rs.100/-. In view of the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in 1993(1) Consumer Protection Reporter “M/s Airpak Couriers (India) Private Limited, V/s Sruesh.S”, the Complainant will not be entitled to any damages or the value of the consignment which was not declared at the time of booking the consignment. No liability, would arise against this Opposite Party in case of non-disclosure of the value of the consignment by the Complainant with supported documents at the time of booking. In the absence of any such declaration no liability would arise against the Opposite Party for the loss or damage caused to the consignments. Under these circumstances, the question of indemnifying the Complainant would not arise at all. The Complainant is entitled for any compensation as claimed in the complaint. Hence prays to dismiss the complaint.
- On behalf of the Complainant, the affidavit of one Sri.G.Sampathraj has been filed. On behalf of the Opposite Party No.1, the affidavit of one Sri.S.Sujith has been filed. Heard the arguments of Complainant and Opposite Party No.1.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:- - Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties ?
- If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled ?
7. Our findings on the above points are:- POINT (1):- Negative POINT (2):- As per the final Order REASONS - POINT NO.1:- It is the case of the Complainant that on 13.07.2015 the Complainant had booked a Consignment Bearing No.B23517144 to be delivered to M/s Care and Cares Society, HQ Hospital, Ayikkara PO, Kannur with Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant did not receive any email or sms from M/s Care and Cares Society for receipt of the Zakath as required for EID even after six days. Therefore, the Complainant contacted the Bangalore Office and they informed that the Courier had reached Kannur as per the online tracking results for Consignment bearing No.B23517144. The Complainant requested M/s Care and Caress Society to follow up with the Opposite Parties office at Kannur. To his shock and surprise the Opposite Party No.7 vide its letter dt.28.07.2015 addressed to M/s Care and Caress Society informed and certified that the Consignment No.B23517144 was misplaced in their network and inspite of several attempts to trace the consignment, it could not find out the consignment and hence the same is deemed to be lost. The Complainant informed the same making enquiries in the Bangalore Office of Opposite Party No.1 but they were helpless. To substantiate this fact, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the copy of the consignment. By looking into this document, it reveals that on 13.07.2015 the Complainant had booked a consignment No.B23517144 to deliver a consignment M/s Care & Caress Society, Head Quarters, Ayikkara PO, Kannur with Opposite Party No.1 and also produced the receipt, as looking into this document, the Complainant had booked the consignment No.B23517144 on 13.07.2015 to Chennai but not Kannur and produced the online tracking results of Consignment No.B23517144. By looking into these documents, it is clear that the said consignment was not reached to the Kannur and also produced the Letter addressed by the DTDC Courier to the Care and Caress Society reporting at misplaced document consignment No.B23517144. By looking into this document, it is very clear that the consignment Order No.B23517144, the Article was misplaced which was booked from Bangalore to Kannur on 13.07.2015. But as looking into the evidence placed by the Complainant himself it is not clear that where the Complainant had booked the consignment to Kannur if it is so why the document produced by the Complainant that is the receipt alleged to issue by the Opposite Party. The said consignment was booked to Chennai on 13.07.2015, due to this reason the said Article may be misplaced instead of reaching Kannur.
- The defence of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the Opposite Party No.1 is not liable for any damages as claimed in the complaint. Since the Complainant has not disclosed the content of the consignment nor declared the value at the time of booking the consignment. In absence of any risk coverage, the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation. In order to substantiate this defence, Sri.S.Sujith, Senior Manager of Opposite Party No.1, in his sworn testimony, he has reiterated the same and produced the Consignment Tracker. As looking into this document, the Consignment Shipment No.B23517144, packet Manifest made from Madiwala Branch, Bangalore to Kannur Branch, on 13.07.2015 and the said consignment reached Cochin and while in transaction between Cochin to Kannur the said consignment was misplaced. But as the evidence placed by the Complainant, the Complainant has not disclosed the content of the consignment nor declared the value at the time of booking the consignment. If the Complainant had declared the content of the consignment and also the value of the consignment. In the absence of any risk coverage for claiming compensation will not arise at all, as law laid down in 1993(1) Consumer Protection Reporter “M/s Airpak Couriers (India) Private Limited, V/s Suresh.S”., thereby there is no any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant had fails to prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 to 7. Hence, this point is held in the Negative.
- POINT NO.2:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER The Complaint is dismissed. No cost. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 24th day of November 2017) MEMBER PRESIDENT LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant: - Sri.G.Sampathraj, the Authorized Signatory of the Complainant Company by way of affidavit.
List of documents filed by the Complainant: - Copy of the Consignment Bearing No.B23517144
- Copy of the receipt for having paid the required fees
- Copy of the Online tracking results for Consignment No.B23517144
- Copy of the Letter dt.28.07.2015 addressed to M/s Care & Caress Society
- Copy of email dt.31.07.2015
- Copy of the Legal Notice, receipt and the acknowledgement
- Copy of the Legal Notice dt.04.09.2015, postal receipt and the acknowledgement.
Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties: - Sri.S.Sujith, Senior Manager of the Opposite Parties by way of affidavit.
List of documents filed by the Opposite Party: - Copy of the consignment tracking details
MEMBER PRESIDENT | |
