Orissa

Rayagada

CC/19/2017

Sri K.Mitra Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s DTDC Courier - Opp.Party(s)

Self

23 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA, Pin No. 765 001.

 

C.C. Case  No.       19/ 2017.                                         Date.      23.    4. 2019.

 

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                       President.

Sri   Gadadhara  Sahu,                                          Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

                                   

Sri K.Mitra Gupta, S/O: K.Nageswar Rao, At: New Colony,    Po/Dist:Rayagada   (Odisha). 765 001,                                    …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Manager, DTDC Booking centre, M/S.Puja communication, Rayagada.

2.The Branch Manager, DTDC Courier, Rayagada.

3.The Regional  office, DTDC (Corrior & Cargo Ltd.), Bhubaneswar.

4.The Manager, Head office, DTDC Expresss service, Courier & Cargo services, No. 3, Victoria road, Bangalore 560 047.     … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.Ps 1  & 2  :- Set Exparte.

For the O.P  No.3 & 4:- Sri  Nihar  Kanta Patra, Advocate,Bhubaneswar.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non delivery  of  courier goods to the addressee which was booked on Dt.  26.10.2016 for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.  The brief facts of the case are  summarized here under.

Back ground  facts in a nutshell  are that  the complainant   had booked certain items as per details given to them when the packet was handed over  to  the O.P. No.1 on DT.  26.10.2016   to be delivered  to M/S. M.Tech  informatics Ltd.,  Kolkata.  In turn  the O.P No.1  had issued  receipt and  received Rs.90.00  towards   booking charges from the complainant . But  till date the above booking  items were  not  delivered to the  addressee as revealed from  tracking report. The complainant has intimated the same matter to the O.Ps from time to time   but  no  action has been taken by the O.Ps till date.  Hence this C.C. case.  The complainant  has claimed  the cost of the  items mentioned in the delivery  letter i.e. Rs.3,700/-   and cost of service charges taken by them Rs.90/-. The complainant  Prays the forum  direct the O.Ps to  refund above amount   & such other  relief as the  forum deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

On being Noticed, the O.Ps 1   & 2   neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  13 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps 1 & 2.  Observing lapses of around 2(two) years  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps 1 & 2. The action of the O.Ps 1 & 2   are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps. 1 & 2 are  set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps No.3 & 4   put in their appearance and filed written version through their learned counsel in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps No. 3 & 4  taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P. No.3 & 4 . Hence the O.P No.3 & 4  prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the   O.P No.3 & 4   and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the complainant had booked a consignment  on  Dt.  26.10.2016   to be delivered  to M/S. M.Tech  informatics Ltd.,  Kolkata (copies of the booking slip is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I).  The consignment  till date  has  not delivered to  the  consignee. Hence this C.C. case.

The main grievance of the  complainant  is that  direct the O.Ps to return back the items booked on Dt.26.10.2016 or to   deliver the same to the consignee and if the  consignment  was  misplaced  they may be ordered to pay the cost of the items i.e. Rs.3,700/- + Rs.90.00  paid  for the service charges.

The  O.P. No.  3 & 4  contended in  their written version  that the complainant has stated in para-3 he has dispatched ‘certain items’, but  he has not  disclosed  what are those items in the consignment copy  at the time of booking of the said consignment and it is quite  surprising that on what basis  he has stated  in his prayer that the cost of the items is Rs.3,700/-.  Further the complainant  has stated that the items were the valuable articles, but he has no where mentioned the name of those articles,  where there is a scope for declaration of the name of those articles.   It is also pertinent to mention here that if the articles are valuable in nature then the consigner could   have insured  it and in that situation the courier company will bear the full amount of the said consignment, if the same  has been declared at the time of booking.

For better appreciation this forum  relied citation which are mentioned  here:-

It is held and reported in  CPJ(3) 2006 page No.72  the Hon’ble State Commission, Kerala where  in observed   “Transport services- Non delivery of consignment-  Complainant was not told/informed  about contents  of consignment – In case of non delivery  liability  of O.P.  limited to Rs.100/- as per consignment slip – Complainant well aware of  conditions printed on said slip – Complainant only entitled to, by way of compensation Rs.100/- as stipulated in condition-  Order of forum awarding Rs.2,500/- compensation upturned.”

Further  It is held and  reported  in  CPJ 1995 page No. 90  the Hon’ble  National  Commission  in the case of Airpak  Couriers(India) Pvt Ltd Vrs. V.Suresh were in observed  “It is clear that this order  was passed because the value of  the consignment was not declared  and it was  not insured  and hence liability was limited  as per consignment note”.

Secondly in AIR – 1996  SC 2508 Civil Appeal No. 9057 of  1996 (Arising out of  SLP © No. 1001 of 1996 in the case of  Bharathi Knitting  Co. Vrs.  DHL World  wide Express Courier divison of Airfreight Ltd. Where in the  Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “ liability limited to  service as per the contract entered between the parties”.

On perusal of the  booking slip   this forum observed  in the present case in hand  the complainant  neither the value of the parcel containing  list of  goods and price  was disclosed   nor it was got insured  at the time  of booking of the  above parcel  on Dt. 26.10.2016 .  The learned  counsel for the  O.P 3 & 4  contended  by way of defense that they were not aware of the contents of the consignment and they were not informed  by the complainant about the contents of the consignment.  Consignment slip containing  that condition was mentioned  and relying on that condition   the  O.Ps contended that  they are not liable for the amount  claimed  under various heads except the liability to pay an amount  of Rs.100/-.

During the course of hearing the  learned  counsel for the  O.Ps has filed the copies of the terms and conditions of the DTDC  Courier  which  are mentioned there and copies of the same is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2.

15. DTDC Liability:-

             In the event of damage or loss or mis-delivery of a consignment the maximum liability assumed by DTDC on a consignment is limited to Rs.100/- unless the sender declares a higher value as declared value for carriage and also pays the applicable risk surcharge thereof as carriers risk at the time of tendering the consignment. 

16. Risk Surcharges

  (a)        If the sender has availed of external insurance the same shall be declared on the consignment note as owner risk and the applicable surcharge thereof shall be paid at the time of tendering the consignment in such cases DTDC to issue the CDF Certificate of Facts if the consignment gets damaged or last while in transit in cases of external insurance by the parties in the event of receiving of claim amount or any part thereof from the insurers the parties agree not or subrogate their rights in favour of the insurers.

b.           If the sender opts for transportation of consignment at carrier Risk then the sender shall pay Risk Surcharge in accordance with the rates mentioned below.

This forum completely agreed with views taken  and the documents filed by the O.Ps in  the present case. This forum inclined to allow the above case  and the complainant is only entitled  to by way of compensation for the non-delivery of the consignment Rs.100/- as stipulated  in the terms and conditions of the booking slip.  

       To meet the ends of justice the following order is passed.

                                  ORDER.

       The complaint  stands  allowed in part on contest against the  O.Ps.

       The  O.P. No.3 & 4 are directed to pay refund  booking charges of consignment a sum of Rs.90.00   besides  compensation  a sum of Rs.100/- inter alia  Rs.800/- towards  litigation expenses.

            The   O.P. No.1 & 2 are directed to refer the matter  to the O.P. No.3 & 4 for early  compliance of the above order.

                        The entire directions shall be carried out with in 45 days from the  date of receipt   of   this order.

Dictated and  corrected by me.   Pronounced in the open forum on   23th.    day of  April , 2019.

 

MEMBER                                                                              MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT