Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/42/2015

Tondapu Rambabu - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. D.T.D.C., Courier & Cargo Ltd., Rep. by its CMD., - Opp.Party(s)

E.M.Sreedhara Babu

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

        Date of filing:    06.07.2015

                                                                                             Date of Order:   10.03.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

                         PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M.,   PRESIDENT(FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER            

                Thursday, the 10^th day of March, 2016

 

C.C.No.42 /2015

Between:-

 

Tondapu Rambabu, S/o. Sriramachandra Reddy,

Age 58 years, Agriculturist, D.No.81-21-13/9, T-1,

Om Residency, Venkateswara Nagar, Walkers Road,

Rajahmundry.                                                                                              …        Complainant

 

                                    And

 

1)  M/s. D.T.D.C. Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

     Rep. by its CMD, Regd. office, No.3, Victoria Road,

     Bangalore – 560 047.                    

 

2)  Branch Manager, M/s. D.T.D.C., Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

     Branch office, Danavaipeta Branch, Bypass Road,

     Jampeta, Rajahmundry.                                                                          …        Opposite parties

 

 

            This case coming on 01.03.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri E. Murali Sreedhara Babu, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite parties called absent and having been set ex-parte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

(Per Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, Member)

The complainant filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service and for non-return of the undelivered parcel; pay Rs.5,000/- towards damages for mental agony and distress and award costs of the complaint.

2.         The case of the complainant is as follows: It is submitted that the complainant with an intention to send medicines, cloths and other important items, which are required by his daughter Srivally who is residing in Ohio State, USA, through one her friends by name Ms.Vijaya Ramdoss, who is resident of D.No.11, Pottinaidu Street, Vandavasi, Thiruvannamalai District, State of Tamilnadu-604408, had delivered the parcel containing above items on 23.3.2015 to the 2^nd opposite party, to deliver the parcel to above person. The complainant had paid necessary charges to the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party acknowledging the receipt of the parcel, issued shipper copy under consignment No.21878797. At the time of giving the parcel to the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant had specifically informed to the 2^nd opposite party that the parcel should reach the destination on or before 26.3.2015, as the above person is leaving the country on 28.3.2015 to USA. The 2^nd opposite party had assured that, the parcel would be delivered to the above person, without any hassle, within two days. On the categorical assurance given by the 2^nd opposite party, the complainant had booked the parcel. The complainant states that, when he enquired with M/s. Vijaya Ramdoss about the parcel, she informed to him, that she did not receive the parcel and without taking the parcel, she left to USA on 28.3.2015. The complainant submits that after the information received from Ms. Vijaya Ramdoss, the complainant has been enquiring with the 2^nd opposite party about the fate of the parcel, but no proper reply was forth come. To the surprise of the complainant, it was informed to the complainant that the parcel has reached some other place, instead of the place where it is booked and the opposite parties assured that they would return the same to the complainant. By the negligent and irresponsible acts of the opposite parties, the complainant could not deliver the valuable items i.e. medicines and clothes to his daughter. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.6.4.2015 to pay damages of Rs.25,000/- and to return the non-delivered parcel to him. The said notice received by the opposite parties, but they did not respond or comply the demands made by the complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3.         The opposite parties remained ex-parte despite receipt of notices from this Forum.

 

4.         The proof affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant and Exs.A1 to A4 have been marked for the complainant.

5.         Heard the complainant.

 

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

           1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

           

7.   Point Nos.1 & 2:-  As per the record, the complainant herein sent the parcel containing medicines, cloths and other important items through the 2^nd opposite party herein to one Ms. Vijaya Ramdoss, residing at Door No.11, Pottinaidu Street, Vandavasi, Thiruvannamalai District, Tamilnadu leaving for U.S.A. on 28.03.2015 and to hand over the parcel to the complainant’s daughter, who is residing at Ohio State, U.S.A. as per Ex.A1 consignment note No.D21878797 dt.23.3.2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite party. The main purpose of sending the parcel is to deliver the same on 26.3.2015 at Vandavasi as the said Ms. Vijaya Ramdoss is leaving for U.S.A. on 28.3.2015 as per the assurance given by the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant alleged that the 2^nd opposite party informed the complainant that the said parcel was reached to some other place instead of Vandavasi and they would return the same to the complainant. So, it is evident that the opposite parties are negligent in delivering the parcel and moreover, even they did not bother to inform about non-delivery immediately to the complainant.

We further observed that, the opposite parties failed to return the non-delivered parcel to the complainant as assured earlier and on that, the complainant got issued legal notice dt.6.4.2015 under Ex.A2 which were sent to the opposite parties on 7.4.2015 as per Ex.A3 postal receipts and the same were received by both the opposite parties as per Ex.A4 acknowledgements. It is further observed that both the opposite parties kept quiet inspite of receipt of the said Ex.A2 demand notice from the complainant. As there was no reply from the opposite parties, the complainant filed this complaint on 06.07.2015 in this Forum and this Forum issued notices to both the opposite parties, who attended to this Forum through their counsel, but later failed to attend this Forum and were set ex-parte on 9.11.2015. The non-reply to the demand notice dt.6.4.2015 issued by the complainant and non-attendance at this Forum, though aware of the fact that the complainant filed a case against them for deficiency in service on their part also amounts to negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

With the above said discussion, under the facts and circumstances of the case, we are in the considered opinion that the acts on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and they are liable to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for non-delivery of parcel as per Ex.A1 consignment to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled for the costs of this complaint as he was forced to approach this Forum for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.  Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to the complainant. We also further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the costs of the complaint to the complainant. Time for compliance is two months from the date of this order. 

 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the 10^th day of March, 2016.

 

              Sd/-xxx                                                                                  Sd/-xxx

            MEMBER                                                                           PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:  None.                                 FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:  None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1    Shipper copy bearing No.D 21878797 dt.23.3.2015 issued by the 2^nd opposite

  party to the complainant.

Ex.A2    Legal notice dt.6.4.2015 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.

Ex.A3    Two postal receipts issued by the postal authorities.

Ex.A4    Two acknowledgements.

 

 

FOR OPPOSTIE PARTIES:-              - Nil -

 

 

          Sd/-xxx                                                                                        Sd/-xxx

       MEMBER                                                                                 PRESIDENT (FAC)