Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/14/389

Prince Dev - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,DTDC courier & Cargo Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

29 Nov 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

                          SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN         : PRESIDENT

                          SMT.PREETHA G NAIR     : MEMBER

                          SRI.VIJU.V.R                             : MEMBER

 

CC.NO.389/2014 (Filed on : 30/09/2014)

ORDER DATED : 29.11.2021

COMPLAINANT

          Prince Dev, TC.27/527 (5), 1^st Floor,

          Opposite to Rainbow Apartments,

          V.V.Road, Pattoor, Vanchiyoor.P.O

          Thiruvananthapuram – 695 035

          (By Adv.Nisham.N)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. The Branch Manager,

DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd,

Of 746, Vanchiyoor FR,

Kunnumpuram Junction

Thiruvananthapuram – 695035

2. The Manager,

DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd,

Registered Office, No.3

Victoria Road, Bangalore – 560047

(OP1 by Adv.Sreevaraham G Satheesh)

(OP2 by Adv.Binu Mathew & Adv.S.Reghu kumar)

ORDER

SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR       : MEMBER

The petitioner is an Advocate, resident of Thiruvananthapuram and practicing in Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam. On 15^th March 2014, the petitioner sent an original invoice of a Laptop which he wants to buy after approving a loan from Farmers Co-operative Bank at Karamana, through DTDC Courier & Cargo. The original invoice was sanctioned by the Bank and was addressed to a Computer Dealer under the name and style Data Deal situated at Pravachambalam Junction at Thiruvananthapuram District itself. Upon delivering the cover containing the invoice, the petitioner was handed over with a receipt bearing No.R 13716716 dated 15.03.2014. The petitioner had a court engagement and it was the sole reason why he preferred sending it through courier. While handing over the aforesaid numbered receipt, the person at the courier desk promised that the consignment will be delivered on the next day. On 17.03.2014 the petitioner called upon Data Deal and asked whether he can collect the laptop as the petitioner had an urgent legal consultancy work at Bangaluru , where the laptop was absolutely essential for the work there. The person at Data Deal told that they cannot deliver the laptop without having the original invoice. Immediately on knowing this the petitioner went to the office of DTDC where the consignment was handed over and the person at the desk told that it will be delivered on 18.03.2014 and apologised for the delay. Even on 18.03.2014 the invoice was not delivered to the addressee by the first respondent and the petitioner approached the first respondent to trace out where the document was held up and the first opposite party was not able to give a proper answer about the status of the document which he had undertaken to deliver, the petitioner has no other remedy other than to initiate the legal proceedings before the appropriate Forum. The above conduct of the opposite party is a grave deficiency in service towards the petitioner. The deficiency in service assumes serious proportion as the opposite party and completely lost the document. The petitioner lost the legal consultancy work at Bangalore due to the lackadaisical attitude of the opposite party which caused loss of credibility as well as substantial financial loss to the petitioner. The petitioner has lost a valuable client for good. Even though the damages is immeasurable, for the purpose of the case it is limited to RS.50,000/-. Hence the complaint.

                2. The first opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The above complaint is not maintainable and is only to be dismissed. The complainant entrusted the office of first opposite party on 15.03.2014 after noon a cover addressed to ‘Data Deal, Prvachambalam Jn:, TVPM ’’ for delivering the same at the address given in the cover. But in the evening on the same day, the complainant informed the first opposite party over phone that the cover need not be delivered and he will collect back the same on the next day. The first opposite party agreed to the same and informed him that he should bring the receipt also. On 17.03.2014 the complainant sent one person on his behalf for collecting the envelope and the complainant informed over telephone to hand over the cover and refund the money. But the first opposite party did not return the cover as the original receipt was not with that person. He was much annoyed and first opposite party explained his inability to return the same without handing over the receipt. The first opposite party stated that a cover was received from the complainant on 15.03.2014 afternoon for delivering at the address given in the cover and a receipt was also issued. The first opposite party was not able to give proper answer about the status of the document is utter false. Such false allegation is raised with some malfide intention.  The cover was not delivered as the complainant instructed not to deliver the same. The cover was entrusted in the afternoon and in the evening itself he informed over telephone that it need not be sent. He agreed to collect back the cover and first opposite party agreed to return the cover and refund the amount collected proved the receipt is produced. Even though the complainant sent a person on his behalf for collecting the cover on 17.03.2014, the same was not returned as the receipt was not handed over. The complainant was infuriated on this and called first opposite party over telephone and threatened with dire consequences for not returning the cover. The delivery was not done as instructed by the complainant and the same was not returned back as the receipt was not produced. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party as alleged. This is only a false and vexatious complaint based on false allegations to wreck vengeance upon first opposite party. The first opposite party is still now ready to return the cover and refund the amount on handing over the original receipt.

3.       The second opposite party filed version stating the following contentions. The above complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts. The complaint is also time barred as per the contract between the consignor and the opposite parties. The averment that the complainant is an advocate practicing in Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam is not with the knowledge of the opposite parties and hence denied and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. It is not disputed that a consignment bearing Consignment No.R13716716 dated 15.03.2014 (which happened to be a Saturday) was booked through the second opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram. But it is denied that the consignment contained the original invoice of a laptop after approving a loan from Farmers Co-operative Bank at Karamana. It is also denied that the person at the courier desk had assured that the consignment will be delivered on the next day ie on 16.03.2014, which is a Sunday. It also denied that the complainant called the Data Deal to collect the laptop on 16.03.2014. It is also denied that the complainant went to the booking office on 16.03.2014 and the person at the desk apologizes for the delay and assured that the consignment will be delivered on 17.03.2016. The consignor had not declared the contents of the consignment or its value at the time of booking the same for carriage with the booking office of the opposite parties, no additional payments like Risk Surcharge for carriage of alleged valuables were paid to the opposite parties. The complainant had not also provided for any proof regarding the contents of the consignment. It is therefore specifically denied that the consignment booked by the consignor contained the items as now mentioned in the complaint. The amount was collected by the first opposite party from the consignor solely towards freight service charge for carriage of the consignment. It appears that recognising the above and as an afterthought the complainant has now made an application to amend the plaint by correcting the above date of 16.03.2014. Had the matter been so (without admitting), the consignor would have approached the opposite parties with a complaint either written or oral immediately on knowing that the consignment was not delivered on 17.03.2014 or 18.03.2014 or immediately thereafter as alleged now. The complainant never approached second opposite party to complain about the loss of consignment or non delivery of the consignment. From the conduct and circumstances it is clear that the consignment was delivered to the consignee. The consignment did not contain any documents as alleged in the complaint now. No complaints regarding the non delivery of the consignment was ever made by the complainant until the filing of the above complaint. No complaint of loss or notice of loss was ever issued to the opposite party carrier within the time period as per the mandatory provisions of the Carriers Act. The further allegation that the compliant had made enquiry on 16.03.2014 and 17.03.2016 with the opposite parties is also incorrect and denied. Such allegations are now raised only to overcome the period of limitation as the complaint is not raised within the 30 days time period as per the contract between the parties. The above complaint is therefore time barred. Since the matter relates to the consignment booked as early as on 15.03.2014, the opposite parties are at present unable to locate any records in connection with the same. The present complaint is time bared as per the terms and conditions of contract. The original consignor copy of the consignment booking leaf with terms and conditions is in the custody of the complainant and he may be directed to produce the same before the Hon’ble Court. The absence of any written complaint would prove that the present allegations regarding the sanctioning of the loan from the Farmers Co-operative Bank and that the consignment contains the original invoice of the laptop and the non delivery of the consignment etc are mere afterthought and hence denied. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had acted in good faith. The intention of the complainant is to make undue monetary gains out of the incident. The complainant had not suffered any amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the financial loss and damages caused on account of the credibility loss and Rs.5000/- towards the cost of the proceedings. The present allegation of loss of legal consultancy work at Bangalore, loss of credibility and substantial financial loss etc, are mere afterthoughts and is specifically denied. It was also informed to the consignor that since the 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.100/- as mentioned in the terms and conditions of the contract / consignment note leaf. The opposite parties collect consignments for carriage subject to terms and conditions that are specifically mentioned in the Consignment Note Leaf. In the event of damage or loss to goods the liability of the opposite parties under the contract between the parties is limited toRs.100//- unless the sender declares a higher value as “declared value for carriage” and also pays the applicable Risk Surcharge thereof as” Carrier’s Risk” at the time of tendering the shipment. The minimum surcharge for “Carrier’s Risk” is Rs.50/- or 2% whichever is higher of the ‘declared value for carriage’, which has not been paid in the instant case to entitle the sender to claim for the declared value. In the instant case, the complainant has not produced any documents to prove the contents of in the consignment. It is also pertinent to mention that in the instant case the complainant had not send any valuables but only sent documents which liability is mentioned to Rs.100/- only in case of loss. The consignor has to declare the value of the consignment and pay additional charges/value for its carriage and also for risk/insurance if they have to claim for its declared /actual value. The complaint may be dismissed with exemplary cost to this opposite party.  

          4.       Complainant field chief affidavit and documents. Thereafter complainant not present for cross examination. The documents were not marked from the side of the complainant. So the complainant not turned up for cross examination and evidence closed on 06.11.2019. Thereafter also complainant was not present and not produced documents to prove his case.

          5.       The complainant was miserably failed to prove his case.

                    In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

                   A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

            Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 29^th day of November 2021.

                                                                                                                                                                             Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN    : PRESIDENT

 

                                                                                                                                                                           Sd/-

        PREETHA G NAIR      : MEMBER

 

                                                                                                                                                                               Sd/-

                          VIJU.V.R                : MEMBER

 

 

 

Be/

 

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACADU

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

CC.NO.389/2014

ORDER DATED : 29.11.2021