IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday, the 31st day of March, 2017
Filed on 31.03.2016.
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
in
CC/No.103/2016
Between
Complainant: Opposite parties:
Sri.Mohanan Pillai.P 1. Sri. Subhashish Chakraborty
Lekha Sadanam(Maugattu) Chairman & Managing Director
Kodamthuruth DTDC Express Ltd,
Kuthiathode-688 533 Corporate Office
Cherthala, Alappuzha, Kerala DTDC House, No.3 Victoria Road, Banglore- 560047
Karnataka.
2. Stanely Mathew
General Manager (South Zone)
No.59/3368,APM Buildings
Near North Railway Station
Cochin-682018
3. Pankaj Saxena
General Manager (North Zone)
B-101, Phase-1, Industrial Area
Naraiana, New Delhi-110028
4. Manager
DTDC Express Ltd, Agency Office
Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir, India
5. Manager
DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd
A.P.V/226-F, Manakkat Building
Aroor-688534
O R D E R
SMT. JASMINE D. (MEMBER)
The case of the complainant in short is as follows:-
The complainant has sent a courier to his daughter containing text books and notebook which are important for the studies of his daughter through the opposite parties from Aroor to Jammu & Kashmir on 25-2-2016. They have charged Rs. 660/- for the same. But the consignment was not been delivered so far. Even though the complainant has contacted the opposite parties there was no proper response from them and also they misbehaved with the complainant and to the consignee. The complainant sustained much mental agony and hence filed this complaint. Opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed Version.
2. The Version of the Opposite parties are as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable. It is not disputed that a Consignment bearing Consignment No. D 25662843 dated 25.02.2016 was booked through the 5th Opposite Party at Aroor, which is a franchisee of DTDC Express Limited, that is a company engaged in the courier/logistics business. The above said consignment was booked by the Consignor to Jammu and Kashmir. Since the consignment was weighing about 5.5kgs and since it was non-document item being sent to Jammu & kashmir which is very sensitive area, to confirm that it is not any banned item or explosives, the Complainant was asked about the contents of the Consignment by the booking office. He specifically mentioned that it is some used books. He was also informed that he will have to pay surcharges at the rate of 2% of the value if the books are valuable items so that he will get the declared value in case of loss of the consignment. The complainant however stated that the books are of no value and therefore he is not declaring any value for the same and is not interested in paying any additional surcharge for the carriage of the same. Accordingly the value was not declared by the complainant and no surcharge/ additional charge paid or collected for the consignment. The consignor had not declare the value of the consignment at the time of booking the same for carriage with the booking office of the opposite parties. No additional payments for carriage of alleged valuables were also paid to the opposite parties. It is therefore specifically denied that the consignment booked by the consignor contained the items as now mentioned in para 1 of the complaint namely books and written notes is specifically denied. The books were of no commercial value. An amount of Rs. 660/- only was collected by the 5th Opposite Party from the consignor solely towards freight service charge for carriage of the consignment from Aroor to Jammu & Kashmir. All the averments in the un numbered paragraph are incorrect and denied. It is denied that the Consignor had made any oral complaint with the 5th Opposite party on 1.3.2016 and 2.3.2016 when it was understood by him that the consignment has reached Jammu but was not delivered. Since there was no complaints the Opposite parties had any opportunity to give any assurance as alleged in the said para to the Complainant. Written complaint if any regarding loss has to be made within 30 days from the date of booking which has not been done. The complainant is therefore time barred. Such allegations are more after thoughts to overcome the delay in making any complaint as mandated under the contract. It is submitted that the consignee was informed of the loss of the Consignment immediately on his contacting the office of the Opposite parties at the place of destination. After tracking and on enquiries it was understood that the consignment was irrecoverable misplaced/lost in transit. The same was therefore immediately informed to the Consignee. Therefore the averment that the Consignee was informed that the Consignment had reached the destination and will be delivered on the evening of 4..3..2016 by the delivering office etc is incorrect and denied. Similarly the sending of Whats App message is also denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is respectfully submitted that there are instances, when despite the due care and diligence of the Opposite Parties, the consignment are irrecoverably lost in transit, which are beyond the control of the opposite parties. It is submitted that since the value of consignment was not declared and no risk/additional surcharges were paid for carriage the Opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation apart from the limited liability of Rs. 500/- as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the contract/consignment note leaf. There is no omission or deficiency on the part of the Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint. The present allegation of loss of books worth. Rs.10,000/- and inaction and irresponsiveness on the part of the opposite parties, allegedly causing mental agony to her etc, are mere after thoughts and specifically denied. There is no negligence in dealing with the complainant which has caused the Complainant any loss, injury and mental agony as alleged with entitles him to any compensation. The opposite parties have not misbehaved with the complainant or the consignee as alleged. The opposite parties are not liable to make good any such exaggerated claim of the complainant and hence the compliant may be dismissed.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 was marked. Opposite parties produced one document which was marked as Ext.B1 series.
4. Considering the allegation of the complainant and contention of the opposite parties this Forum has raised the following issues for consideration:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
5. Issues:-
The case of the complainant is that he has sent a courier to his daughter at Jammu & Kashmir through the 5th Opposite party on 25.2.2016. They have charged an amount of Rs.660/- for the same. The said consignment contained text books and note books which are important for the studies of his daughter. But till date it has not been delivered The complainant further alleged that the opposite parties have misbehaved with the complainant and the consignee. The complainant sustained much mental agony Hence this complaint.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and produced the receipt issued by the opposite parties which was marked as Ext.A1. From the document it can be seen that the complainant has sent a courier containing books through the 5th opposite party from Aroor to Jammu & Kashmir and the opposite party has charged an amount of Rs. 660/- for the same. According to the complainant the consignment has neither delivered nor returned to the complainant. Admittedly the consignment was lost in transit. According to the opposite party the value of the consignment was not declared and the complainant has not paid any additional surcharges. So the opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation apart from the limited liability of Rs.500/- mentioned in the T & C of the consignment note. From Ext.B1(b) consignment note it is stated that the liability of DTDC in the event of damage or loss or mis-delivery of a shipment the maximum liability assumed by DTDC on a shipment is limited to Rs. 100/- unless the sender declares a higher value as “Declared Value for Carriage” and also pays the applicable Risk Surcharge thereof as “Carriers Risk” at the time of tendering the shipment. The terms of the consignment notes are not clearly explained to the consigner nor do they sign the same. The courier company can’t take refuge behind such terms and conditions. Since the consignment has neither delivered nor returned the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. Therefore company and its agents are liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience caused to him and the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the same.
In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 660/- (Rupees Six hundred and Sixty only) with 12% interest from 20.2.2016 till realization. The opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.4000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 1000/- (Rupees Thousand only) towards cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of the receipt of this order.
Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31st day of March, 2017.
Sd/-Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Sd/-Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/-Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - P. Mohanan Pillai
Ext.A1 - Copy of Consignment note
Evidence of the opposite party:-
Ext.B1 - Consignment note
//True copy//
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/SF
Typed by: Br/-
Comped . by:Pr/-
