Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

          The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting a relief u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  The complainant is a student of college of engineering manakkala, Adoor and the team leader of the “Dhrutha” in the college for the ensuing SUPRA EVENT.  1^st to 3^rd opposite party are the branch office and main officers of the DTDC courier service.  The 4^th opposite party is the manufacturer and supplier of Steel Tubes to the customer on demand.  It is contented that since 2012 the students of the above said college continuously attending SUPRA EVENT which is organised by SAEINDIA at Noida UP.  It’s for increasing the potentiality and ability of the young engineers in their discipline.  The complainant and his team members had a plan to remodel and redesign the car by incorporating new technology in that vehicle so as to develop the said car to a race car.  As per the procedure, before admitting the national level competition as a technical team they should have inspected the newly developed products and designs.  The technical team was scheduled to visitor the complainant’s college campus by 15^th May 2017.  The complainant and his team was involved in the preparation of the new design of the ‘Race Car’  for that the team had an urgent need of 25.4 X 2.5mm Carbon Steel Tube of AISI 1020 mark.  The complainant ordered the said Carbon Steel Tube from the 4^th opposite party and contacts the 2^nd opposite party to transport the said item to the college at Adoor through the 3^rd opposite party.  It is contented that the 4^th opposite party delivered the ordered item -  6 Mtrs. Steel Tube – to the 2^nd opposite party for delivery vide invoice No.8456 dated 24/03/2017.  Since the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party failed to deliver the said product to the complainant till 30/03/2017 the fact informed to the concerned and the 2^nd opposite party agreed to take alternate steps for the delivery.  Though the complainant expected the delivery of the product it was in vain.  Therefore the complainant was constrained to order the steel tube through another company at Coimbatore and paid Rs.6,300/- as its value.  It is contented that the due to the delay happened for the delivery of the steel tube with in the time limit they could not participate the said SUPRA EVENT so that claimed Rs.4,41,400/- from the 1^st to 3^rd  opposite party as compensation.  Hence this complaint to realise the said amount from the opposite parties along with cost and compensation.

3. This Forum entertained this complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties for appearance.  Though this Forum issued notice to the opposite parties 1^st,3^rd and 4^th opposite party received notice but they did not appear before this Forum hence all the said opposite parties are declared ex parte by this Forum.  The 2^nd opposite party’s notice return with an endorsement as ‘left’.  The complainant produced a paper publication on 27/03/2018 and in pursuance of said paper publication the 2^nd opposite party was also set ex parte. 

4. On the basis of the complaint before this Forum and records produced by the complainant we framed the following issues for consideration.

1. Whether the complaint is allowable?

2. Regarding the relief and cost?

1. In order to prove the case of the complainant the complainant he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and produced and marked Ext.A1 to A6 in his favour he is examined as PW1.  Ext.A1 shows that the complainant ordered a Carbon Steel Tube AISI 1020 Seamless through E-mail dated 23/03/2017.  Ext.A2 is the cash receipt dated 24/03/2017.  Ext.A3 is the retail invoice dated 24/03/2017.  Ext.A4 is the bill send to DTDC Courier service dated 24/03/2017.  Ext.A5 is the E-mail conversation.  Ext.A6 is another invoice dated 05/04/2017.  After the closure of evidence we heard the complainant.
2. Point No. 1 &2:- For the sake of convenience we would like to consider Point No. 1&2 together. When we go through the contents of PW1’s proof affidavit we can see that it is more or less as per, the tune of his complaint.  In order to establish the contention of the complainant he produced and marked Ext.A1 dated 23/03/2017 which shows that the complainant ordered a Carbon Steel Tube AISI 1020 Seamless.  Ext.A2 proves that on 24/03/2017 the complainant paid an amount of Rs.3,600/- as advice and a balance of Rs.53,667.93/- also can be seen in the said exhibit.  It is also proved that on 24/03/2017 the complainant ordered and purchased a new Steel Tube on the said specification from Bhartiya Manufacturing Industries by paying an amount of Rs.3,600/-.  Ext.A4 dated 24/03/2017 shows that the Bhartiya Manufacturing Industries, Chandigarh sent the said article through the DTDC Courier service Chandigarh to Adoor on the complainant’s address.  Ext.A5 shows that the complainant made so many E-mail conversation with 1^st opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party and at last the opposite party stated that the ‘case stands closed’.  Ext.A6 dated 05/04/2017 is another invoice of the above said steel tube issued from the Scolarian Bicycles Private Limited, Coimbatore in favour of the one of his team member.  It shows that for the same description of steel tube, complainant’s friend paid Rs.6,300/- to the said dealer.    
3. On the basis of the above complaint and deposition of complainant’s PW1 it is clear that the complainant he who ordered for a steel tube and paid the value of the steel tube to the 4^th opposite party and the 4^th opposite party sent that article through the 3^rd opposite party - courier service - in favour of the complainant.  These facts can be proved by Ext.A1, A3 and Ext. A4.  When we evaluate Ext.A5 E-mail conversation it is also understood that the article did not deliver to the complainant through 3^rd opposite party’s office situated at Adoor.  It is to be noted that all the opposite parties in this case are declared ex parte.  Therefore the evidence adduced by the complainant is unchallengeable as far as this case is concerned.  When we refer Ext.A6 we can see that the team member of the complainant’s college team one Nishan Faizal ordered this same ‘Steel Tube’ with same specification on 05/04/2017 from Coimbatore by paying of Rs.6,300/- and the same is reached in time to the complainant’s college.  If so the delay caused for obtaining the said article to the complainant’s college only for about 11 days.  The complainant did not put forward any contention to the effect that the item order as per Ext.A6 had not been received with in time.  Therefore the claim of the complainant to the effect that he and his team had lost a golden chance to attend the fair in time would not be believable.  Though the complainant demanded an exaggerated compensation from the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party but failed to substantiate any evidence to consider this fact.  However we find that the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party failed to deliver the item referred in Ext.A4 dated 24/03/2017.  There is no explanation on the part of the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party for the non- delivery of the said article to the complainant with in the time limit.  When we consider this case we are giving much importance to the ambition and enthusiasm of young engineering students in their discipline.  Any how the failure on the part of the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party for the delivery of the article caused much grievances and mental agony to the complainant as well as the team members.  Considering this aspect we would like to allow the complaint partly.  When we appreciate the evidence of this case it is proved that the 1^st to 3^rd opposite party are managers of DTDC courier service hence 1^st to 3^rd opposite party are jointly and severely liable to the complainant.  It is also find that the 4^th opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service against the complainant.   Hence 4^th opposite party is exonerated from all charges.  Hence Point No 1&2 found accordingly. 
4. In the result we pass the following orders.

1. The 1^st to 3^rd opposite party are hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and a cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards. 

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of June, 2018.

                                                                                                                                                     (Sd/-)

                                                                                                                                 P.Satheesh Chandran Nair,

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member):(Sd/-)

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

1. Vipin Raj.

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1: Complainant ordered in a Carbon Steel Tube AISI 1020 Seamless through E-mail dated 23/03/2017.

A2: Cash receipt dated 24/03/2017.

A3: Retail invoice dated 24/03/2017.

A4: Bill send to DTDC Courier service dated 24/03/2017.

A5: E-mail conversation.

A6: Another invoice dated 05/04/2017.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.

(By Order)

                                 Copy to:-

1.  Vipin Raj,

VIII^th Sem, Engineering Student,

Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, Manakala, Adoor, Pathanamthitta.

2. The Manger,

M/s. DTDC Express Limited, No. 3 Victoria Road,

Bangalore – 560 047. (Set Ex Parte on 13/07/2017)

3. The Manager,

M/s. DTDC. Plot No.182/56, Industrial Area Phase I,

Chandigarh-160 012. (Set Ex Parte on 17/04/2018)

4.  The Manager,

M/s. DTDC, Near Bus Stand, Adoor.

(Set Ex Parte on 13/07/2017)

5. The Manager,

M/s. Bhartiya Manufacturing Industries,

Plot No. 427, Industrial Area, Phase-2 Chandigarh.

(Set Ex Parte On 06/10/2017)

6. The Stock File.