Delhi

New Delhi

CC/773/2014

GAGAN VASWANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. DTDC COURIER SERVICES - Opp.Party(s)

05 May 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/773/14                                                                                                                                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

Mr. Gagan Vaswani,

S/o Late Sh. Ravinder Vaswani,

R/o Q-31, GF, Lajpat Nagar-4,

New Delhi-110024

……..COMPLAINANT

       

VERSUS

1. Manager/Chairman/In Charge,

        DTDC Courier Services,

        9-A, Sindhiya House, Near Nanak Jewellers,

        Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001

 

2. Manager/Chairman/In Charge,

        DTDC Courier Services,

        K-30, Near Vijay Sales,

        Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi-110024

 

3. Manager/Chairman/In Charge,

        DTDC Courier Services,

        B-101, Phase-I, Industrial Area, Naraina,

        New Delhi-110028

        ……..OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER [ORAL]

Date of Arguments: 05.05.2015

Member:  Ritu Garodia

Present:   Adv. Rajesh Sharma for OP.

                None for Complainant.

                OP fails to settle the complaint.

The shorts facts of alleged deficiency are that the Complainant sent a parcel with OP Courier Company on 04.08.04 to Ahmadabad. The Courier receipt is duly annexed with the complaint. The parcel failed to reach the recipient and the complainant called and pursued the matter with OP Company’s customer care multiple times but to no avail. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent and complaint was filed.

OP in its version while admitting the loss absolved itself of its liability on the grounds of non-disclosure of contents and lack of insurance of parcel. OP has also stated that complainant was informed of loss of package.

 Scrutiny of records reveals that package and loss of package are admitted position by parties. OP stated that complainant was intimated of loss but no documentary proof is annexed with OP’s version, Complainant has given multiple phone numbers of OP Courier Company’s customer care wherein he tried to contact OP Company. OP has taken no efforts to trace the missing parcel or inform the complainant. OP could have easily tracked the file or in alternative filed the track record as to where the parcel could have gone missing on in traceable. Further, the content of parcel has no connection with the loss of parcel and as such, plea take by OP’s are vague and frivolous.

  We, therefore find OP guilty of deficiency in service in their non efforts to trace the missing parcel. OP is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment, negligence, physical inconveniences inclusive of litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

 

Pronounced in open Court on 05.05.2015.

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

(S.R. CHAUDHARY)                 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER