BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 10^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2023

ORDER

SMT. SUMA ANILKUMAR, MEMBER

The complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, complainant seeking direction towards OP for the following reliefs:-

1. To direct the OP to refund the booking amount and return the documents dispatched with the OP.
2. To direct the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as deficiency in the service rendered and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the mental harassment and for damage for complainant’s reputation.
3. To direct the OP to pay for the litigation expenses for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-.
4. To direct the OP to desist from practicing his unfair trade practice.
5. To pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Commission deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the above complaint, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is practicing advocate in Bangalore since 12 years and having his office at Bangalore. The complainant was co-coordinating a brief with his brother who is advocate in Kerala and had to dispatch certain important and confidential court documents by courier to Wayanad, Kerala to enable him appear on behalf of his client at the family court in Kerala. The complainant couriered the consignment through the OP who promised quick delivery and quality service to ensure that the court papers reached the brother advocate as soon as possible. The said courier was booked for shipping on 24.01.2023 from Bangalore to Wayanad for which the complainant was charged Rs.100/-, Invoice No. B15771637.

3. The said consignment did not reach the receiver that is Mr. Ranjith, advocate (complainant’s brother) the receiver informed the complainant of the delay and on perusal of online tracking report it was known that the said consignment had not only been delayed but has also not reached the receiver. Due to result of non delivery of the said documents the complainant not only lost his reputation with his client but also with his brother advocate as they were of impression that the complainant was falsely claiming to have dispatched the documents. Further, complainant for the explanation for non delivery of consignments and the status of consignment, wrote a E-mail to customer support at DTDC.com on 31.01.2023 to which the OP replied vide E-mail dated 01.02.2023 to the same stating that the same would be reported to origin. However the consignment has not been received till date. The complainant wrote the other letter dated 01.02.2023 to OP seeking for an explanation but there was no response from the OP. The consignment consisted of Vakalath and case papers to empower the counsel in Wayanad, Kerala to appear in the case bearing MC No.102/2022 in the family court at Wayanad. The said papers never reached the counsel and for this the complainant had to cut sorry figure as his client was not reached and further the counsel could not appear. The complainant subsequently sent fresh set of papers through speed post on 02.02.2023. The complainant left with no remedy, issued legal notice to OP on 01.03.2023. Hence this complaint.

4. On issue of notice the OP filed his version.

5. In the version of OP, the OP agrees to the fact that the complainant may be an practicing advocate in Bangalore for more than 12 years but the complainant was coordinating a brief with his brother advocate in Kerala, to dispatch such an important, confidential court documents through courier but enable him to appear on behalf of his client at the family court is not to the knowledge of the OP. It is false to suggest that the consignment booked by the complainant dated 24.01.2020 from Bangalore to Wayanad as not reached to its destination. The complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The complainant has not disclosed the contents, value and its importance either on the face of the consignment by mentioning to take utmost urgent for delivery nor the complainant has disclosed on the consignment note to take utmost responsibility to deliver the same to its destination.

6. It is mandatory on the part of complainant before entrusting the consignment to OP to disclose its value of content and its importance by giving necessary risk sur charge for the same. The same was not availed and moreover the OP is not liable for any consequential loss of the complainant if the complainant failed to disclose the same at the time of entrusting the consignment as per the terms and conditions of the foot receipt of the consignment note printed on the back leaf of the consignment note. The consignment was returned to origin due to non-availability at the time of delivery of the consignment to the consignee, hence it was not reached. It is not obligatory on the part of consignor to give on intimate for the same if he is not available at the time of delivery of the consignment to consignee. The OP submits that due to non-delivery of the vakalath and court papers in time, the complainant has not manufactured that it had contented original documents and they can make alternative arrangements by seeking time to file memo or appearance or take adjournment for filing the same in the next ate of hearing of the court. The OP further stated that the complainant is false and frevious and not tenable under law, the complainant tried to content customer support for non-delivery of consignment. The consignment had access to tracking website of OP to know the status of consignment. Further the complainant subsequently sent fresh set of papers through speed post on 02.02.2023, the documents received from the advocate sent by them again shows that the complainant is not under consequential loss or damage in the case manufactured (MC No.102/2023) filed before family court at Wayanad. The DTDC company is a limited liability company registered and incorporated under Companies Act 1956. It is having the largest domestic delivery network and offers various service including courier service throughout India and abroad rendering a fast and prompt service to the satisfaction of that consumers. Assuming but not hearing the claiming of complaint, the OP submit that it is mandatory for the complainant to disclose the opponent about the contents of the consignment by paying risk charge rate fixed by the courier failing which it is owners risk and her the complainant has filed to do so. Section 12 of Courier’s Act 2016, in case all the sent consignment in loss or damage will be limited to freight charges only, moreover the OP state’s that they are only courier and nothing to personally with contents of the complainant. As per Section 12 (7) of the Courier Act 2011, the complainant had to intimate through a notice in writing must be given by the consignee of loss or damage of goods within 6 days of actual handing over the consignment. Hence the claim by the complainant barred by limitation. The OP submits that there is no deficiency of service by him, hence the complaint to be dismissed.

7. The complainant in his contention as filed affidavit evidence along with 13 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. Heard the complainant’s arguments.

8. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

9.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- In the affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

10. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

11. As per the document Ex.P.1 the copy of the receipt bearing consignment No.B15771637 submitted by the complainant dated 24.01.2023, it clearly shows that the complainant had booked the courier shipping from Bangalore to Waynad. In the said DTDC receipt bearing No.B15771637, the mode of shipping as 3 modes:-

i) Surface

ii) Average

iii) Express

Here the complainant has clearly marked as express way of shipping. The Ex.P.2 which is online tracking report of the said consignment, shows the booking dated as 24.01.2023 and the status dated is 31.01.2023.  From the above said documents it is very clear that complainant had courier shipping which is not been delivered in time by the OP. The complainant has tried to track is consignment and has also made the OP regarding the same. The OP in reply has apologized for the inconvenience caused and agree to instruct the concerned team to cross check and update the same to the complainant.. But the OP has shows sheer negligence in updating about the consignment to the complainant. It is clear that the complainant has booked expressway of courier that the OP is now asking for the value of the content and the risk sur charge of the same which should have been done by the complainant on failing which the consignment is not been delivered, the OP unconditional to any client of booking of courier should have made effort to deliver it to the right place at the right time as promised by the OP. The OP has shown deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice, hence is directed to refund the booking amount of Rs.100/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.1,000/- towards litigation charge Rs.500/- within 30 days from the date of order failing which, is directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the Award amount till realization. Hence Point No.1&2 accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 10^th day of NOVEMBER, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

     NIL