BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.

                                                          Consumer Complaint no.105 of 2015                                                                                 

                                                          Date of Institution         :    01.06.2015

                                                          Date of Decision   :   21.9.2016.

Sahil Singla c/o Star Computer, Colony Road, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.

                                                     ……Complainant.

                                      Versus.

1.  Naresh Kumar c/o Monga Courier Point, near Geeta Bhawan, Main Bazar, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.

2. DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd., Regd. Office No.3 Victoria Road, Bengaluru- 560047, through its Managing Director/ Authorized person.

                                                                           ...…Opposite parties.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………..PRESIDENT

                     SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.   

Present:       Sh. B.S. Yadav,  Advocate for the complainant.

Opposite parties already exparte.

                   ORDER

                   Brief facts of the present complaint are that opposite party no.1 is the authorized person of DTDC courier and Cargo Ltd., Bengaluru i.e. op no.2. The complainant booked a parcel on 19.11.2014 through the courier agency of op no.1, containing a mobile of the value of Rs.17,500/- for its delivery to his known Siddarath at Kolkata. However, the said parcel was not delivered to said Siddarath at Calcutta and when he complained to op no.1 for its non delivery at the destination, first of all op no.1 assured the complainant that the delivery would be made shortly. Later on, the op no.1 adopted lame excuses and put off the matter on one pretext or the other continuously for a number of days. The complainant got issued a notice to op no.1 through counsel and the said notice was replied by op no.1 denying the booking of the parcel with op no.1. The story of threat as mentioned in the reply is after thought and baseless. Had there been any such threatening, the op no.1 must have complained to the police authorities. The mobile was packed in the parcel in the presence of op no.1 and only after verifying the same, the op no.1 had mentioned in the receipt about the mobile and its value. There is deficiency in service on the part of ops. The op no.1 being agent and op no.2 being incharge/ owner of the concerned courier are liable for the loss caused to the complainant. The complainant has to arrange another mobile set for his known for which he has spent an amount of Rs.15,000/-. The complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite parties as compensation including value of the mobile etc. and for harassment. Hence, this complaint.

2.                Upon notice, initially opposite parties appeared through counsel but on 2.5.2016 when the case was fixed for filing written statement, none appeared on behalf of ops and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.

3.                The complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1, reply to legal notice Ex.C2, acknowledgement Ex.C3, legal notice Ex.C4, copy of courier receipt Ex.C5 and copy of visiting card of op no.1 Ex.C6.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

5.                It has been established on record that on 19.11.2014 complainant sent a parcel containing mobile through the courier agency of opposite party no.1 which was to be delivered at the address of one Siddararth known of the complainant at Kolkata as is evident from copy of courier receipt Ex.C5. In the courier receipt, it is clearly mentioned that the parcel contains mobile and its value has been mentioned as Rs.17,500/-. But the said parcel was not delivered to said Siddarath at Kolkata. The complainant got served a legal notice in this regard upon the opposite party no.1 on 4.2.2015 to which opposite party through his counsel has given reply on 3.3.2015 Ex.C2, the contents of which are reproduced as under:-

“ Some documents was sent by your client on 19.11.2014 through courier, but it is wrong to allege that your client has sent any Mobile, nor my client told that there is a mobile in the parcel. That your client later on compelled my client to write mobile word and amount of Rs.17,500/- after threatening him. If the parcel sent by your client has not received its destination, then it is not fault of my client. My client has written to DTDC company regarding the loss of parcel. They have demanded the original receipt and your client was asked to submit the original receipt, so that it could be sent to the company, but your client refused to give the original receipt. So, your client claim was rejected by the company. The company has made all the efforts and the bag in which the parcel of your client was there, whole bag stolen at Airport Delhi and the company has lodged the FIR in Delhi in the Airport area.”

6.                From the above contents of the reply of opposite party no.1, it is clear cut admission on the part of the opposite parties that bag containing the parcel dispatched by the complainant was stolen at Delhi Airport which is clear cut negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite party no.1 has also tried to absolve from liability by saying in the reply to legal notice that parcel was containing some documents and not mobile and complainant later on compelled to write mobile and amount of Rs.17,500/- after threatening him which cannot be believed at all. After putting appearance the opposite parties have failed to file any written statement rather opted to be proceeded against exparte. The evidence led by the complainant by way of affidavit and documents has gone unrebutted and unchallenged. There is sufficient material on the file to prove that mobile was sent by the complainant through courier service of the opposite parties which was to be delivered by them at Kolkata but same has been misplaced in the way and not reached the destination.

7.                The complainant has claimed the value of the mobile in question to the tune of Rs.15,000/- and besides that he has alleged that he had to purchase another mobile for his known and he spent an amount of Rs.15,000/- but no bill in this regard has been placed on file. So, we are of the considered view that complainant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- i.e. value of the mobile which has been lost by the opposite parties besides compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the harassment and litigation expenses.

8.                Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant being value of the mobile in question and also to pay further amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation including litigation expenses within a period of one month, failing which complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum on the total amount from the date of filing of present complaint till actual payment.  Both the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable to comply this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.                                           President,

Dated:21.9.2016.                                                  District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Sirsa.

                                    Member.