Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he purchased a Blackberry mobile set from the op no.2 in the year of 2012 at a cost of Rs. 9,198/- and after purchase the display defect was detected but that was reported to the op no.2 and as per direction of op no.2, complainant sent the said blackberry mobile phone through the op no.1 on 22.06.2012 under consignment No. V-09087638 to Naptol Service, the description of mobile was disclosed and declared value of the mobile was Rs. 10,000/- as such consignment was insured for Rs. 10,000/-. After some days, the complainant through phone contacted with the op no.2 and requested to send the mobile through courier to the complainant-s address but the ops reported that they did not receive the aforesaid blackberry mobile from the DTDC Courier. Thereafter on enquiry the DTDC & Cargo Ltd on 23.07.2012 over phone op no.1 stated that the consignment had been returned without delivery and stating the reason. When complainant sent a staff to collect the said mobile from the op no.1 but the said op no.1 informed that someone already took the mobile from their office and also produced a pod bearing signature dated 13.07.2012 but op no.1 refused to handover the said copy to the complainant and complainant is a consumer under the definition of C.P. Act and op no.1 is bound to refund the said mobile insured value with interest to the complainant and for negligent and deficient manner of service for which the complaint was filed on 21.12.2012 for redressal.
On the other hand op no.2 by filing written statement submitted that every deal offered by the company is assigned a Deal Number and customers place their orders by referring the relevant Deal Number through company-s website or by making call at the designated helpline numbers. Purchase order was placed by the customers is passed on to the concerned vendors for the delivery of the product and the product was sent to customers either through courier or by postal service, company is not engaged in any manufacturing activities. It is pertinent to note that on each advertisement/offer given by the company, it is clearly mentioned as Products and warranty by 3rd party Vendors and from the record of the op, it is found that complainant was requested to send back the said product at the address of vendor for the purpose of repair or replacement and keeping into the interest of every customer into mind M/s Naptol always keep watch and follows every stage of every complaint and inform the status to the every complainant and in this regard the complainant was requested to send back the product at the address, but the record shows that the said product was not received at the side of vendor and therefore to confirm this proof of delivery was demanded from the complainant. It is found that op no.2 did not receive the same for which the entire complaint against op no.2 is not tenable and so same should be dismissed.
But op no.1 DTDC Courier even after receipt of the same did not turn up to contest this case for which the case was ultimately closed for decision after accepting the evidence materials from the complainant and the op no.2.
Decision with reasons
After introspective study of the entire case record, it is clear that complainant sent one mobile valued at Rs.10,000/- to Naptol Service for repairing at New Delhi through DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. on 22.06.2012 paying courier charges of Rs. 445/- and the said article was insured by the op no.1 and same was sent from DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. office at Mahatma Gandhi Road, P.S.- Barabazar, Kolkata-700001 and in support of that the said receipt has been filed before this Forum and as per said receipt, it is clear that complainant is a consignor and consignee is Naptol Service.
Fact remains till date op no.1 DTDC failed to deliver the same to the consignee at New Delhi and at the same time op no.1 failed to handover any piece of paper to show that it was received by the op no.2. On the contrary it is found that DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. even after repeated reminder made by the complainant did not satisfy the complainant that the consignment was received by the op no.2 or after return it was received by the complainant. But truth is that complainant never received the same. It is also true that complainant informed the official of DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. but no one pay any heed and did not satisfy that the article was received either by the consignee or by the consignor. Thereafter the matter was reported to Barabazar Police Station, but policy did not take any step and most interesting factor is that op no.2 submitted that he never received the product and another suspecting factor is that DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. has harassed the complainant for a long period and has not reported the said mobile to the complainant or did not deliver the same to the op no.2.
So, it is clear that DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. acted in a very negligent manner and no doubt op no.1 and their office has harassed the complainant. The article which was sent after insuring the same and also had not been returned to the complainant or it was not delivered to the op no.2 and for that op no.1 and their staff had their scope to contest this case, but even after receipt of the same they did not turn up. It indicates that DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. has adopted unfair trade practice and invariably they have anyhow grabbed the said article and thus they are harassing the complainant, though complainant hired the service of op no.1 on payment of Rs. 445/- and after paying the instant cost also and considering that fact it is clear that complainant has been harassed by the op no.1 and it is the legal responsibility and liability to refund or return the said mobile after repairing the same or paid Rs. 10,000/- and also for compensation for harassing the complainant since 22.10.2012 and no doubt in this case Naptol Service has no liability. But complainant rightly made him party as op no.2 otherwise the entire matter could not be properly settled. But complainant did not get it and anyhow complainant has proved the negligence and deficient manner of service and adopting unfair trade practice by the op no.1 for which the complaint succeeds against the op no.1 with cost.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op no.1 and same is dismissed against the op no.2 without any cost.
Op no.1 is hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.10,000/- and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- for harassing the complainant including Rs.10000/- + service charges paid Rs.445/- i.e. total Rs. 10,445/- and also Rs.5,000/- for harassing the complainant and also for the negligent and deficient manner of service.
For adopting unfair trade practice by the op no.1, op no.1 is imposed punitive damages of Rs. 5,000/- and same is imposed to check the path of unfair trade practice as adopted by the op no.1 and same shall be deposited to this Forum.
Op no.1 is directed to comply the order within one month from the date of this order failing which for each day-s delay penalty at the rate of Rs.200/- per day shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree and even penal proceedings u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against them.
