Karnataka

Kolar

CC/19/2015

Sri.Prashanth.V - Complainant(s)

Versus

The DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. H.K. Ramesh

06 Aug 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing: 10/06/2015

Date of Order: 06/08/2015

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 06^th DAY OF AUGUST 2015

PRESENT

SRI. N.B. KULKARNI, B.Sc., LLB,(Spl.)    …….    PRESIDENT

SRI. R. CHOWDAPPA, B.A., LLB              ……..    MEMBER

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL., LLB        ……  LADY MEMBER

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO 19 OF 2015

Sri. Prashanth.V,

S/o. Vijay Kumar V,

R/at: Kataripalya Extension,

Kolar City.

 

(Rep. by Sriyuth. H.K. Ramesh, Advocate)              ….  Complainant.

 

- V/s -

1) The DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited,

DTDC House, No.3, Victoria Road,

Bangalore-560 047.

 

2) The DTDC Branch Office,

Near ING Vysya Bank, Off MG Road,

Kolar City.

 

(OP Nos.1 & 2 are represented by

Sriyuth. P.K. Venkatesh Prasad, Advocate)        …. Opposite Parties.

-: ORDER:-

BY Sri. N.B. KULKARNI, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant having submitted this complaint as envisaged Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has sought, relief of recovery of Rs.11,999/- towards cost of the product.  He has also sought relief of consignment charges of DTDC Plus category (assured delivery next business day), insurance charges, etc., and has claimed damages in a sum of Rs.40,000/- for deficiency in service.  Thus he has sought recovery of the said sums together with interest @ 18% p.a. as well, for costs for being recovered from the OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.

 

02.   The facts in brief:-

It is contention of the complainant that, through the Ops he had sent through courier on 20.04.2015 a mobile Samsung Grand Prime SM-G530HZADINS bearing Sl. No. 356554067989513 worth of Rs.11,999/- for being delivered to M/s. WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur City.  And that it was DTDC PLUS Courier Service.  And that hence it was bound to reach the destination by two days.

 

(a)    Further it is contended that, on enquiry, it was found that, the said consignment did not reach the destination.  And that he made enquiry with OP-2 who being the Branch at Kolar.  And that on 10.05.2015 he received an e-mail reply from OP-1 to the effect that, consignment was missing in spite of efforts to trace it.  And that on 16.05.2015 he caused legal notice to OP-1 which was served by speed post; whereas he handed-over the said notice to the OP-2 by hand.  So contending the complainant has come up with this complaint on had to seek set out reliefs.

 

(b)    Along with complaint he has submitted office copy of the said notice, acknowledgement for receipt of the said notice by OP-2, Xerox copy of DTDC Plus particulars, the consignment details, and e-mail correspondence being 29 in pages, as well, Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the OP-2 for having received the said consignment which was bound to be sent to the addressee through DTDC Plus Courier.

 

03.   In response to the notices issued, both the Ops have put in their appearance through their learned counsel and on 27.07.2015 the OP-1 has submitted written version.  There is a Memo to the effect that, the said written version is to be adopted by OP-2. 

 

(a)    It is their specific contention that, the complainant was duty bound to get the said consignment insured with them.  And that the complainant has not disclosed the consignment.  And that he had not even declared value of the consignment.  And that under the circumstances there could be no liability for loss of the consignment during transit.  However it is contended that, the liability of them is to repay the sum of Rs.500/- only for the loss of the consignment as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the consignment note.  It is also contended that, in view of the principles enunciated in 2004 CTJ 442 (NC) the complainant is not entitled to any damages or the value of the consignment as the same was not declared at the time of booking of the consignment.  Thus dismissal of the complaint has been sought.

 

04.   The complainant has submitted his affidavit evidence likewise on behalf of the Ops one Sri. S. Sujith has submitted his affidavit evidence.  On 27.07.2015 itself a Memo has been filed by the learned counsel appearing for the Ops with Xerox copy of the said citation 2004 CTJ 442 (CP) (NCDRC). 

 

05.   The learned counsel appearing for the Ops even submitted his oral arguments on this day of 27.07.2015 itself.  On 04.08.2015 the learned counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted written arguments and has also addressed oral arguments. 

 

06.   Therefore the points that do arise for our consideration in this case are:-

1. Whether the Ops are guilty of deficiency in service with regard to non-delivery of said mobile telephone set of Samsung Grand Prime SM-G530HZADINS bearing Sl. No.356554067989513 worth of Rs.11,999/- that was consigned on 20.04.2015 at Kolar for being delivered to M/s. WS Retail Services Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur City?

 

2.   If so, to what compensation the complainant is entitled to?

 

3.  What order?

 

07.   Findings of this District Forum on the above stated points for the following reasons are:-

POINT 1:     In the Affirmative.

 

POINT 2:     The complainant is entitled to recover Rs.11,999/- being the price amount of the said consignment, Rs.5,000/- towards damages and Rs.500/- being the amount paid by the complainant towards courier charges, i.e., a total sum of Rs.17,499/- together with interest @ 9% pa from 10.06.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization for being recovered from the OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.

 

POINT 3:     As per final order for the following:-

REASONS

POINT NO.s. 1 & 2:-

08.   To avoid repetition in reasonings and as these points do warrant common course of discussion, the same are taken up for consideration at a time. 

 

(a) The only resistance given by the Ops is that, the complainant was guilty of non-disclosure of the nature of consignment and the value, as well, guilty of not getting the said article insured.  These contentions are false one at the outset, for, the said e-mail correspondence at page-20 it to disclose that, Ops did intimate the complainant that, the consignment had remained untraced in the transit from Bangalore to Jaipur.  Therefore the consignment was not received by the said addressee.  The very receipt issued by the Ops, the Xerox copy of which is very much on record would disclose that, it was DTDC PLUS Courier.  This would mean, the consignment that was entrusted on 20.04.2015 at Kolar was bound to reach the destiny at the latest by 22.04.2015.  In view of the said admission through e-mail it is a fact that the consignment came to be lost in the transit.

 

(b)    The Ops intend to avoid the liability by contending that, the complainant has not disclosed as to what the consignment was and had not declared the value and had not taken the insurance with them to meet the risk of damage on non-delivery.  We have observed above that, these are the false contentions. 

 

(c)    It is evident from the said receipt issued by the Ops that, the consignment entrusted was phone.  Value of the goods was of Rs.11,999/-.  These disclosures are found in the very receipt.  Coming to the contention of insurance not being taken we are of the definite opinion that, the OP-2 had collected even towards insurance charges.  Going by the weight of the consignment it was to weigh 0.42 kg.  As per disclosure in the said receipt issued by the Ops the consignment was phone of the value of Rs.11,999/-.  For such weight of consignment DTDC Plus Courier service Rs.270/- could be charged at the maximum.  The said receipt discloses that, the complainant had paid Rs.500/-.  Now it is for the Ops to explain as to what happened to the balance sum of Rs.230/- ?  They have not expressed any accountability.  Therefore we are bound to draw an inference that this sum of Rs.230/- that remained with the Ops was necessarily towards insurance. 

 

(d)    So the very OP Nos.1 & 2 are guilty of not providing the insurance in spite of the fact that, they were in receipt of the said money.  At any rate the complainant had disclosed the description of the consignment together with its price, it was up to the OP Nos.1 & 2 to get the said consignment to be sent through courier, insured.  Thus they have lacked in their duty.  And as admittedly the consignment has been lost in the transit there is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 & 2.  So the principle enunciated in the said citation as relied by the learned counsel appearing for the Ops is in-applicable to the case on hand. 

 

(e)    As such, the complainant is held entitled to Rs.11,999/- being price of the said mobile.  As the OP Nos.1 & 2 are guilty of deficiency in service in as much as the said consignment did not reach the destination we hold that, the complainant is entitled to compensation by way of damages in a sum of Rs.5,000/-.  We further hold that, the complainant is also entitled to refund of Rs.500/- being the charges paid by the complainant on the said day for availing courier service.  Thus the complainant is entitled to recover total sum of Rs.17,499/- together with interest @ 9% pa from 10.06.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization recovered from OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.

 

POINT 3:-

09.   We proceed to pass the following:-

 

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons this complaint stands allowed with costs of Rs.3,000/- as hereunder:-

(a) The complainant is held entitled to recover a sum of Rs.17,499/- together with interest @ 9% pa from 10.06.2015 being the date of the complaint till realization, for being recovered from OP Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. 

(02)  Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the Open Forum, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 06^th DAY OF AUGUST 2015)

 

 

 

 

MEMBER                             MEMBER                  PRESIDENT