In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 99 / 2010.
1) Syed Abdul Wahid,
13A, Ibrahim Road, Kolkata-700023. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) M/s. DHL Express (India),
21, Camac Street, Kolkata-700016.
2) Taher Ali Khan,
45, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata-700016. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,MEMBER
Smt. Sharmi Basu ,MEMBER
Order No. 1 8 Dated 25/04/2012.
The instant case has been filed by the complainant Syed Abdul Wahid u/s 13 of the C.P. Act, with allegation of deficiency in rendering service against the o.ps. M/s DHL Express (India) and another.
The son of he complainant was a student and studying in a University of Middlesex in London and for the educational expenses of his son the complainant purchased on 15.9.09 a Bank Demand Draft vide no.025737 of Pound 4800 amounting to Indian money of Rs.3,91,946/- from the Bank of India, New Alipore Branch, Calcutta (Overseas Branch) and drawn on its London Branch in favour of Middlesex University for his son. The complainant booked the above-mentioned Bank Demand Draft by the o.p. no.1, namely M/s. DHL Express (India), through its authorized agent the o.p. no.2, namely Taher Ali Khan and the o.p. no.1 issued shipment Airway Bill no.1235168681 dt.15.9.09 and received the charge amounting Rs.1600/-. The complainant has submitted that the o.p. mno.1 was entrusted to deliver the Bank Demand Draft to the son of the complainant at London on scheduled date i.e. on 16.9.09. Thereafter, being informed from his son that the booked demand-draft did not reach at the destination, the complainant started searching about the aforesaid Bank Demand Draft and made several representation to the o.p. no.1, but the o.p. no.1 could not trace out the draft in question and then by a letter dt.22.9.09 the courier of he o.p. no.1 informed the son of the complainant that the aforesaid Bank Draft has been lost in transit.
The complainant submitted that being a cardiac patient after getting information of loss of the Bank Demand Draft in question which was sent to his son for his educational expenses including fees, hostel-charges, etc., the complainant was heavily shocked and suffered mental anxiety and traumatized and for that the complainant had to undergo through medical treatment for about fortnight for recovering from the shock and the complainant had to incur a huge amount for medical treatment amounting Rs.25,000/- It is also submitted by the complainant that he informed the bank on 23.9.09 for cancellation and stopping payment of the aforesaid Bank Draft. As per the complainant when the Bank Draft was purchased the amount of the draft was at higher rate and when the same was cancelled it was at lower rate because the rate of purchasing the pound was higher but when it was cancelled the rate was lower. The difference of rate in purchase and cancellation sale of pound the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.30,860/- and the complainant also suffered loss of commission amounting Rs.450/- and expenses of transmission amounting Rs.1600/-. When the complainant demanded the total loss amounting Rs.57,910/- to the o.ps. through a letter of his ld. advocate, the letter was returned with postal endorsement ‘not known’. Hence, the instant complaint. the complainant has prayed for reliefs as mentioned in his complaint petition.
O.p. no.2 did not appear before this Forum even after valid service of summon upon him and the instant case is heard ex parte against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 had entered its appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against it and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is an admitted position that complainant sent Rs.3,91,946/- (Pound 4800) to his son at London and it is further admitted position that the said demand draft was lost in transit. Further it transpires from the record that complainant took steps for cancellation of the said draft and for such cancellation complainant had to incur a sum of Rs.30,860/-. Further it is apparent from the record that due to loss of the said demand draft complainant fell sick and the difference in rate in purchase and cancellation of sale of pound complainant suffered a loss of Rs.30,860/- and had to pay commission fee of Rs.450/- and expenses of transmission amounting to Rs.1600/- and for his treatment he incurred Rs.25,000/- and the case of the complainant is that all these sum amounting to Rs.57,910/-. But there is no voucher to substantiate the expenses of Rs.25,000/- incurred by complainant towards his treatment.
In view of the above findings and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials of record we are of the view that the loss incurred by complainant appears to be reasonable and deserve consideration and we find clear deficiency on the part of o.p. no.1 solely since because o.p. no.2 happens to be the agent of o.p. no.1 and the matter against o.p. no.1 was heard ex parte.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against o.p. no.1 in part and ex parte against o.p. no.2 without cost. O.p. no.1 is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.32,310/- (Rupees thirty two thousand three hundred ten) only and compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_______ _______Sd-_______ ________Sd-______
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
