Tripura

West Tripura

CC/79/2015

Sri Malay Kumar Deb. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. & 1 another. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.P.Saha, Mr.S.Pandit, Mr.A.Debnath.

14 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA  :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 79 of 2015

Sri Malay Kumar Deb,
S/o- Lt. Manindra Kumar Deb,
Dhaleswar, Road No. 15, 
P.S. East Agartala,
West Tripura.                .….…...Complainant.

VERSUS

1. The Branch Manager,
DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,
H.G.B. Road, P.S. West Agartala,
Post Office Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura.

2. The Managing Director,
DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,
Regd. Office at No.3, Victoria Road,
Bengaluru- 560 047.         ..............Opposite parties.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Sri Pulak Saha,
                      Sri Swarup Pandit,
                         Sri Anjan Debnath,
                      Advocates.

For the O.Ps                 : Sri Abhijit Gon Choudhury,
                      Sri Bimal Deb,
                      Advocates.

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  14.06.2016

J U D G M E N T 
        This case was filed one Malay Kumar Deb against the officials of DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency of service. The case of the complainant in short is that on 10.01.2015  staffs of the complainant booked one parcel containing medical statement of the LIC of the complainant for transmission of the same to the address of the complainant IIT Kharagpur. DTDC accepted the parcel for transmission but the parcel was not delivered in the given address on the ground that address was not correct. Since to date the delivery of the parcel was not made. Petitioner suffered huge loss. He could not renew the insurance policy certificate, suffered mental stress. Therefore, he claimed Rs.1 lakh compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. 

2.        O.P. DTDC represented by Managing Director filed the Written objection denying the claim. He stated that complainant is not entitled to get compensation as he did not respond to the telephonic calls by the DTDC officials.

3.        On the basis of contention raised by both the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (i) Whether the O.P. DTDC failed to deliver the parcel in right time for his negligence?
         (ii)Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 4.        Petitioner Malay Kumar Deb produced the statement on affidavit on behalf of his claim. Thereafter left Agartala and appointed Jayanta Kumar Pal as his attorney to conduct the case. The Power of Attorney is produced in this regard. Jayanta Kumar Pal produced the statement on affidavit. He produced the receipt from DTDC, downloaded copy of Flipkart, marked as Exhibit- 1 Series.

5.        O.P. DTDC on the other hand declined to give any evidence. So, on the basis of all the evidence we shall now determine the above points.

        FINDINGS AND DECISIONS:
6.        It is admitted and established fact that Petitioner booked parcel with the DTDC for transmission of same to Kharagpur. Copy of DTDC is produced. Rs.100/- was charged for transmission. Original copy of booking also produced. In that copy address was not written only PIN code – 7302 is written. There the terms and conditions is written in the overleaf of the receipt. In that terms and conditions liability of the DTDC is written under clause- 15. It is written that in the event of damage or loss or misdelivery DTDC shall pay Rs.100/- when there is no declared value. In this case there is no declared value of the parcel. But DTDC admitted that the parcel was not damaged, lost or mis-delivered. It was returned as for insufficient address. After return why the parcel was not sent to the senders address not explained. It is admitted that till today the parcel is not returned to the sender or transmitted to the receiver. This is negligence and deficiency of service. Petitioner and his attorney in their statement on affidavit stated that the parcel was not receipt after 3-4 days on call and Branch Manager of the DTDC assured that it will be delivered after 1-2 days but the parcel not reached.
        The contention of the DTDC that the petitioner did not respond to the telephonic call is not supported by  any evidence. There is nothing in the W.S to support that on a particular date or particular time DTDC called the petitioner to receive the parcel from their office at Kharagpur. If the sender's address or recipient’s address was in sufficient then DTDC should have reject the parcel. It was not proper to receive the parcel in case the address there is insufficient. DTDC had service centre at Kharagpur. Kharagpur centre is to call the petitioner to take the parcel from their office but it was not done. Parcel was returned on the ground that address not correct. The address of the petitioner IIT, Kharagpur is a reputed institute. Petitioner was a scholar, living in postal premisses. The name of the venue also given with telephone number. Why it was considered incorrect address not explained by the O.P. in the written statement. O.P. also failed to give any evidence to support that the address was incorrect. So, this contention of O.P. is not tenable and we can not support it. Petitioner given the Flip kart receipt to show that in the same address other articles were shipped by Flip kart. So, the plea of the O.P. that address was incorrect is vague one. 

        For no reasonable ground O.P. DTDC failed to deliver the parcel. It was kept in their custody without any cause for longer period. This is deficiency of service and petitioner is entitled to get compensation for this deficiency of service. Quantum of compensation we consider that should be Rs.10,000/-. Petitioner failed to show the total loss for not delivering the insurance policy medical statements. There was delay in renewing the policy only. For this Rs.10,000/- is considered sufficient. In addition the petitioner will entitled to get Rs.5000/- for litigation cost. Both the points are decided accordingly.

        We therefore direct the O.P. DTDC to pay total Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-, total Rs.15,000/- as compensation and litigation cost to the petitioner. Payment should be made within 2(two) months, if it is not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.  
 
     Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA