Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/22/2020

M.Ravi Kumar Reddy, S/o. M.Mahadeva Reddy, Rep. by Mr. N.C.S.M.Prasad, President, NAC, Tirupati. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s DTDC Express Limited, Rep. by its Authorized Signatory, - Opp.Party(s)

National Association of Consumers (NAC)

11 Mar 2022

ORDER

Filing Date:07.01.2021

                                                                                                         Order Date:11.03.2022

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

        PRESENT: Sri.Achuta Parthasarathy, President

                              Smt.T.Sneha Latha, Woman Member

                      Sri.N.Sasidhara Reddy, Member

FRIDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

C.C.No.22/2020

Between

M.Ravi Kumar Reddy,

Aged about 44 years,

S/o. M.Mahadeva Reddy,

1-46, Jaya Nagar Colony,

Sai Nagar Panchayathi,

Bairagi Patteda,

Tirupati – 517 507.

(Represented by Mr.N.C.S.M.Prasad, President, NAC, Tirupati)           … Complainant.

And

M/s. DTDC Express Limited,

Rep.by its authorized signatory,

 15-4-244, G.N.Mada Street,

Tirupati – 517 501.                                                                                   …  Opposite party.

            This Consumer Complaint is coming on for hearing in the presence of the President, National Association of Consumers (NAC), Tirupati, Sri.NCSM Prasad, representing the complainant, and the opposite party having been set exparte. Upon hearing and considering the material on record, this complaint having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passed the following order:-   

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. ACHUTA PARTHASARATHY, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

            The complainant filed this complaint praying for a direction to the opposite party to refund the courier charges of Rs.50/- collected from the complainant on 10.03.2020. He is praying for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for inconvenience, expenses, mental torture etc. due to deficiency in service, undue harassment, negligence and irresponsibility and further for the costs of the litigation claimed at Rs.6,000/-.   

            2.  It is averred that the complainant booked a parcel weighing 700 grams addressed to Mr. Ghouse Shaik (Consignee), # 10-2-35/9/A, opposite to A1 – ABBAS Heights, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad – 500 004, with mobile No.7799307117. He paid Rs.50/- for the consignment bearing No.H96837434 dt:10.03.2020. At the time of booking, the complainant requested the opposite party to book the parcel as a valued parcel, as it contains life saving medicines and also a mobile Moto Z3PLAY phone costing # 158.99, which approximately comes to Rs.11,675/- in Indian currency. The opposite party promised Time Assured Delivery and booked the parcel and assured that within three days of booking it will be delivered. The parcel was neither delivered to the consignee nor returned to the complainant even after lapse of 163 days. This inordinate delay and the purpose of sending life saving medicines is not fruitful.  

            3.  It is averred that as the parcel was not delivered to the consignee till 22.05.2020, the complainant requested the opposite party stating that as the consignee left the house, to return the parcel to the complainant and sent a message to Ms.Sarita, DTDC, Tirupati, to her mobile No.8374676547 on 22.05.2020 at 15.32, for which she sent a reply stating that “OK Sir” within three minutes. The complainant sent several requests to Ms.Sarita, DTDC, Tirupati and Mr.Srinivas, DTDC, Hyderabad, with mobile No.9394308425 and also contacted over phone several times.

            4.  It is averred that the complainant booked an online complaint on 15.07.2020. The same was successfully registered with the opposite party by ticket No.16488328 but there is no further response thereafter. The complainant visited the office of the opposite party umpteen times and requested them to return the parcel.   

            5.  The complainant averred that he got issued a notice dt:10.08.2020 to the opposite party through NAC, Tirupati. The same was served on the opposite party on 12.08.2020, as there was no response, which shows the carelessness and irresponsibility of the opposite party. Hence the complaint.

            6.  Notice was issued to the opposite party. The opposite party is stated to have refused the service and was set exparte.

            7.  The proof affidavit of the complainant captioned as chief affidavit is filed. Exs.A1 to A7 are marked on behalf of the complainant. Written arguments were also filed. Heard the President, NAC, on behalf of the complainant.

            8.  Now the points for determination are:-  Whether the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service and that he duly established the same?  and Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs of refund of courier charges and compensation etc.?

            9.  Since the opposite party remained exparte, the points can be considered together.

            10.  The evidence of the complainant is that the complainant booked a parcel weighing 700 grams addressed to the consignee Mr. Ghouse Shaik (Consignee), # 10-2-35/9/A, opposite to A1 – ABBAS Heights, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad – 500 004. He requested the opposite party to book the parcel as a valued parcel, as it contains life saving medicines and a mobile Moto Z3PLAY phone costing $158.99, which approximately valued at Rs.11,675/- in Indian currency. The opposite party promised Time Assured Delivery. As the parcel was not delivered to the consignee till 22.05.2020, the complainant sent a message to Ms.Sarita, DTDC, Tirupati and Mr.Srinivas, DTDC, Hyderabad.  His online complaint was also successfully registered. He made several requests but the consignment was not delivered. It was also not returned. He got issued a notice through NAC, Tirupati on 10.08.2020. It was served on the opposite party on 12.08.2020. There was no response. It proves the carelessness and irresponsibility.

            11.  Ex.A1 is consignor copy for booking DTDC by the complainant to the consignee Mr.Ghouse Shaik of Hyderabad. It shows that the consignment No.H96837434 and it was booked on 10.03.2020. Ex.A2 shows the printout of Whats-App messages. There are messages dt:15.05.2020; 22.05.2020; 10.06.2020; 26.06.2020; 29.06.2020; 13.07.2020; 14.07.2020 and 22.07.2020. Apart from these messages, there is track report showing movement from 10.03.2020 to 06.07.2020. Ex.A3 is a printout for showing that a complaint with regard to the consignment H96837434 was registered with ticket No.16488328. Ex.A4 is the notice copy issued by the President, NAC dt:10.08.2020. Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgement. Ex.A6 is the authorization to the President, NAC, to represent the complainant. Ex.A7 is the online bill for purchasing moto z³ play in the name of Kirankumar Reddy.

            12.  Ex.A1 does not show or indicate that the consignment contained life saving medicines and mobile phone. It simply shows the weight of 700 grams. The photocopy of the track report, which is not fully visible shows that the package contains painting / artwork roll; left and right ends of the said track report is not completely printed. It shows that the consignment was booked on 10.03.2020 at 16.11 hours. It shows that through Mehdipatnam Master Franchisee, it was successfully delivered on 06.07.2020 at 15.05 hours. In the entry dt:11.03.2020 at 8.46 hours, it shows that it was received at Facility Basheerbagh Branch. Another entry of the same date at 12.16 hours shows that it was re-routed and forwarded from the facility. Last status is shown on 06.07.2020 as successfully delivered. The Whats-App message prior to 27.05.2020 shows a message as follows – “To address person left that house so pls. return my package”. It was timed at 15.32 hours. It is not known whether it is print-out of message dt:22.05.2020.                A message dt:22.05.2020 at 15.31 shows “I want return of this package”. A forwarded message showing the address Ghouse Shaik, House No.10-2-35/9/A, opposite to A1 – Abbas Heights, Bazar Ghat, Hyderabad, is also shown. A message dt:15.05.2020 at 8.37 also shows “I want return of this package”. A message showing Ghouse Shaik Hyderabad with phone +91 77993 07117 dt:14.07.2020 at 15.48 shown “Delivered: Your ravi shipment  (H96837434) has been delivered on 6/7/2020 to ssign. Visit –

            13.  A message dt:29.06.2020 screen shot of which was taken at 19.09 shows “This parcel is in mehadipatnam hub, pls. return my package to Tirupati. Another message dt:13.07.2020 at 12.44 shows “Yet I do not received my package is my package is there or not”.

            14.  In none of these messages, it is mentioned about the consignment containing life saving medicines or moto cell phone. In Ex.A4 it is mentioned that parcel is containing life saving medicines and also new mobile phone costing $70. Ex.A4 is dt:10.08.2020. For the first time on 10.08.2020 it is mentioned that the parcel contains life saving medicines and a mobile phone. Ex.A7 shows that it was a bill sent by Motorola store on 08.11.2019 in the name of Kirankumar Reddy with email ID kiran.mkkr@gmail.com . In Ex.A7 the value of the mobile Moto z³ play is shown as $149.99, including tax shipping bill is shown as $ 158.99. The complaint has not stated the relationship between Kirankumar Reddy and the complainant M.Ravi Kumar Reddy. It is not known why the cost of the mobile phone is shown as $70 in Ex.A4. The relationship between the complainant M.Ravi Kumar Reddy and Ghouse Shaik is also not known. It is not known whether either of them is a Doctor or a Patient. It is not known what are the life saving medicines contained in the parcel. The track report shows that the package contains Painting / Art work Roll. How the nexus could be established between mobile phone bill in the name of Kirankumar Reddy dt:08.11.2019 and the consignment booked by M.Ravi Kumar Reddy on 10.03.2020 is not stated. It is also puzzling how and why a mobile phone was sent with a parcel without getting it insured without showing that the parcel is containing the mobile phone. It is not known why the unusual mix-up of life saving medicines and Moto z³ play mobile phone are included in the consignment. The relationship between consignor and consignee is nowhere stated. The evidence of the consignee Ghouse Shaik is not adduced. The complaint appears to be a dubious complaint with a spurious claim.   

15.  The decision in F.A.No.293/2015 dt:16.11.2015 of the State Commission of UT, Chandigarh, is relied upon for the complainant. In that decision it was claimed and there was evidence to show the consignment was returned to the booking office on 30.04.2013. In the said decision the claim was sought to be limited to Rs.100/- by the DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. It was stated that the terms were in small print and it did not contain the signature of the consignor. There was clear finding about the deficiency of service. The complainant was awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.7,500/- by the DCF-1, UT, Chandigarh. The decision relied upon for the complainant, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances in this case.  

16.  The absence of messages mentioning about either life saving medicines or  Moto z³ play mobile phone and mentioning about the same in the notice dt:10.08.2020 for the first time shows that it is a chance claim. It is unconvincing. Under these circumstances it cannot be considered, that the complainant had legitimately filed the complaint with bonafide intentions. Such being the case, in view of the above discussion, it is difficult to be convinced that the complainant established about the deficiency of service and duly established the same. In such case, it cannot be said that he is entitled for compensation. The doubts loom large about the bonafidies and the claim made by the complainant. The point for determination is accordingly answered.    

            17.  In the result, doubts are persisting about the claim of the complainant. The complainant failed to establish that he bonafidely made the claim. The complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is dismissed. No costs.            

            18.  This order is passed unanimously by the President and Members. The delay in the disposal of the C.C. occurred due to vacancy in the post of the President and Members of the District Commission and as there was no quorum.           

            Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission this the 11^h day of March, 2022.

          Sd/-                                                            Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                                     

Woman Member                                           Member                                            President

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

witnesses examined on behalf of complainant/s.

PW-1: Sri. M. Ravi Kumar Reddy (Chief affidavit filed).

witnesses examined on behalf of opposite party/s.

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

-NIL-

                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                                                                      President

             // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.