Order No. 14 dt. 29/06/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a General Secretary of Amanat Foundation Trust. In order to help the minority women through the programme of leadership development of minority women 2014-15 and also for having the sanction from Govt. of India regarding the said scheme the complainant was informed that the proposal has to be sent within 23.5.14. Accordingly the complainant booked the service of o.ps. and paid an amount of Rs.1220/- as consideration. The said document was not reached to the addressee within the scheduled date i.e. on 23.5.14. The complainant wrote a letter to o.p. no.2 as to why the parcel has not reached to destination within 23.5.14 causing loss amounting to Rs.14,31,000/-. The complainant collected the track report wherefrom it is evident that the parcel reached at Delhi office on 22.5.14 and there was enough time to reach the destination within 23.5.14 but the same was delivered on 27.5.14. In view of such delay committed by o.ps. the complainant filed this case praying for cost of the project of rs.3,57,750/- and compensation of Rs.1 lakh and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that o.ps. run their business under the name and style DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd. The complainant booked one article on 21.5.14 being consignment no.D 179969. At the time of booking the booking person requested the complainant to book the article in DTDC Plus Service for speedy delivery. But the complainant ignored that and booked the article on D Series. The complainant ignored the advice of booking person and the article was delivered between 5-6 days. The article was received by Delhi office on 23.5.14 in the evening. 24.5.14 was Saturday and 25.5.14 was Sunday and the office of the addressee was closed on those days, so the delivery attempt was failed. On 26.5.14 Monday morning when the delivery boy visited the office of addressee for delivery of the article the concerned person refused to take the same since by that time the dateline had already passed. On the basis of the said fact it was stated by o.ps. that there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the article was booked by the complainant towards ordinary delivery system?
- Whether the holidays intervened within the stipulated date?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant being the General Secretary of Amanat Foundation Trust and in order to help the minority women for their development and as per th e scheme of the govt. certain information were required to be provided. In order to provide those information a parcel was prepared and the same was despatched through o.ps. so that the article can reach on 23.5.14 but the parcel did not reach within the stipulated time for which the complainant faced the loss to the tune of Rs.3,57,750/- and accordingly ld. lawyer prayed for reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that it is not disputed that the complainant did not book the article for sending it through o.ps. At the time of booking the article the person concerned informed the complainant that in order to reach the article within the stipulated date i.e. on 23.5.14 he should opt for DTDC Plus Service for speedy delivery. But the complainant ignored that and booked the article on D Series. It is also an admitted fact that the article reached in Delhi on 23.5.14 in the evening and 24.5.14 was Saturday and 25.5.14 was Sunday and the office of the addressee was closed on those days, so the delivery attempt was failed. On 26.5.14 while the delivery boy went to handover the article the receiver refused to accept the same since the date had already expired. There was no latches on the part of o.ps. and accordingly o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant is a trust and in order to help the minority women the trust acted for their benefit and wanted to place some vital documents as sought for by the Ministry of Minority Affairs, Govt. of India in New Delhi and the date was fixed for receiving the information on 23.5.14. It is also found from the materials on record that at the time of booking the article the concerned booking person requested the complainant to book the article in DTDC Plus Service for speedy delivery, but the complainant did not abide by the direction of the booking person. It is also found from the materials on record that the article reached Delhi on 23.5.14 in the evening and 24.5.14 was Saturday and 25.5.14 was Sunday and the office of the addressee was closed on those days, so the delivery attempt was failed. Accordingly the article was delivered on 26.5.14 and the concerned department refused to accept the same. Therefore, from the track report as well as from the materials on record it is found that due to the fault on the part of the complainant and for non compliance of the direction of the booking person the complainant had to suffer. Accordingly we hold that because of not availing of DTDC Plus Service for speedy delivery such delay was committed for which o.ps. cannot be held liable. Apart from the said fact we can rely on a decision as reported in 2017(2) CPR 5 (SC) wherein it was held that a trust is not a person and cannot be a consumer. Consequently it cannot be a complainant and it cannot file a consumer dispute. In the said judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the definition of consumer as per the C.P. Act and also who can be the complainant as per Sec 2(m) of the said Act. On the basis of the said ruling as well as the facts and circumstances as stated above we hold that the complainant being a trust cannot file a case under the C.P. Act as well as consider the facts and circumstances as stated hereinabove the claim of the complainant is negated since the complainant himself was at fault for not accepting the proposal of the good advice of the booking person of o.ps. and opted for booking the article on D Series which may be delivered between 5-6 days. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above we hold that the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.16/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
