Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

cc/434/2011

Yerapati Viswa Teja - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N. Venugopala Rao

04 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:11-11-2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:04-02-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President   

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                          Wednesday, the 4^th day of February, 2015.

                                  CONSUMER CASE No.434/2011

Between:-

Sri Yarapati Viswa Teja, S/o Appa Rao,

Hindu, aged 18 years, residing at

D.No.13/430, Arilova, Visakhapatnam.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.The DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

   Regd. Office: DTDC House, No.3,

   Victoria Road Bangalore-560 047.

2.The DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

   Branch Office Opp: Automotive

   Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Maddilapalem,

   Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                       …  Opposite Parties     

                     

          This case coming on 12.01.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N. Venu Gopala Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri P. Ravi Kiran, Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asks the Forum to pass an order in his favour and against the Opposite Parties for: a) to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant for causing mental agony, deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice; b) to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this Complaint;  and c) for such other relief or reliefs that are deemed just in the circumstances of the case.

 

2.     The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 

         

 3.      The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that the 2^nd Opposite Party is one of its Franchise Branch at Maddilapalem, Near Krishna College Junction, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.    On 31^st May, 2011 at about 10:20 p.m. the Complainant booked a Railway Ticket through IRCTCs e-Ticketing Service (Electronic Reservation Slip) from Rajahmundry to Visakhapatnam by Ratnachal Express (Train No.12718) on 9.6.2011 and the same was confirmed as Coach No.D-3/78 (Passenger Name: Santhi, aged 28 years).  The said ticket was booked for Complainant’s sister who is residing at Devarapalli, Near Rajahmundry for the purpose of attending the marriage function of Complainant’s cousin brother which was performed on 9.6.2011.   The Complainant stated that on 4.6.2011 the Complainant booked by the Opposite Parties courier the above said IRCTCs e-Ticket (Electronic Reservation Slip) to the Complainant’s brother-in-law’s address.   At the time of booking the courier, the 2^nd Opposite Party’s employee stated that the said cover would reach within 48 hours the destination.   On the assurance given by the 2^nd Opposite Party’s employee, the Complainant booked the same through the 2^nd Opposite Party Franchisee Branch.   The Complainant was informed by his brother-in-law on 6.6.2011 that the said cover not yet reached and then the Complainant contacted to the 2^nd Opposite Party on telephone by telephone No.0891-2700675.   The 2^nd Opposite Party office staff received the Complainant’s call and requested the Complainant to wait some time to verify the status, but the 2^nd Opposite Party did not reply and then the Complainant approached the 2^nd Opposite Party personally, and enquired about the cover and then the 2^nd Opposite Party Franchisee staff gave a telephone No.9390397529 to the Complainant.    The Complainant contacted the same but there was no use and they did not respond.    The Complainant stated that the said cover reached the Complainant’s brother-in-law on 9.6.2011 at about 10.44 A.M.    On that day the train had already left at about 8.30 A.M. before receiving the said courier, and there was no use to booking the train ticket by reservation before journey.    On 9.6.2011 the Complainant’s sister also with two small children was to catch the Bus to Visakhapatnam and attend the marriage function for she did not receive the cover which was booked through the 2^nd Opposite Party Franchisee Branch.   The Complainant further stated that it clearly shows that the 2^nd Opposite Party was grossly negligent in discharging its duties for no specific reason.   For the Complainant’s loss of comfort, loss of time and huge amount of money,  the Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the Complainant @ Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice and it comes under the Consumer Protection Act.     He got issued a Registered Lawyer’s Notice on 15.07.2011 to the 1^st Opposite Party and also Franchisee Branch at Visakhapatnam under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act and the same was received by the 1^st Opposite Party on 23.07.2011.   It did not send any reply to it; and the Franchise Branch did not receive the said notice which was returned on 22.07.2011.    Having no other alternative, the Complainant approached this Forum.   Hence, this Complaint.

 

4.       The Complainant filed an affidavit and also written arguments to support his claim.      Exs.A1 to A6 are marked for the Complainant.  

 

5.       On the other hand, the Opposite Parties resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from their counter, that it is true that the Complainant on 04.06.2011 booked courier IRCTC e-Ticket to the Complainant’s brother-in-law’s address.   But it is not true that the 2^nd Opposite Party employees stated that the said cover would be reach within 48 hours the destination place; the Opposite Parties’ staff never said anything regarding reaching of cover and the cover was delivered to the addressee mentioned in the cover.    The cover was delivered to the addressee and the address is in a village situated near Rajahmundry and the cover went to Visakhapatnam Office to Rajahmundry office.   It is a village and the delivery boy went twice to deliver the cover and the contents of the cover are not known to the 2^nd Opposite Party and there was no deficiency of service, negligence, and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party and the Registered Lawyer’s Notice was not replied by the 1^st Opposite Party and the liability of the 1^st Opposite Party is only for Rs.500/- and the complaint is not maintainable under law.

6.       The Opposite Parties filed an evidence affidavit by the 2^nd Opposite Party and also written arguments to buttress their contentions.    However, no documents are marked for the Opposite Parties.

 

7.       The matter has not been heard on behalf of both sides.

 

8.       After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that as per Ex.A2 Courier Receipt, the consignment i.e., the envelop was dispatched from Visakhapatnam on 4.6.2011.   It admittedly was delivered to the addressee at Devarapalli, near Rajahmundry, on 9.6.2011.   It is a recorded fact that it took nearly six days to reach from Visakhapatnam to a Village near Rajahmundry, by any standard, this is undue delay.   The contention of the Opposite Parties, that the delivery boy went twice to deliver the cover, cuts no ice as the said statement was not supported by any record.   It is also clear that the contention of the Opposite Parties, that the liability of the 1^st Opposite Party is only for Rs.500/-, is also very vague and unsupported by any fact or law.   Moreover, it is a fact that though the 1^st Opposite Party received Ex.A3 Lawyer’s Notice from the Complainant, it failed to respond.    This is the last straw on the camel’s back.   The Complainant approached this Forum solely because there was no response from the Opposite Parties even to his lawyer’s notice.   This indifference on the part of the Opposite Parties amounts to sheer deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice.   This deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties should have caused much mental agony, financial loss and physical hardship to the Complainant.   As such, he is entitled to suitable compensation.   Moreover, as the Complainant is forced to file this complaint because of the deficiency of service coupled with unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, he is entitled to these costs of this Complaint too.

 

9.       In the result, this Forum directs the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 to pay: a) a compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) and b) Costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) to the Complainant.   Time for compliance, one month.

 

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 4^th day of February, 2015.

  Sd/-                                        Sd/-                                      Sd/-

President                          Lady Member                           Male Member

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	31.05.2011	Railway Ticket though IRCTCs e-Ticketing Service	Photo copy
Ex.A02	04.06.2011	Courier Receipt	Original
EX.A03	15.07.2011	Registered Lawyer’s Notice addressed by the Complainant’s counsel to 2nd Op.	Office copy
Ex.A04	23.07.2011	Acknowledgement	Original
Ex.A05	22.07.2011	Retuned cover and Acknowledgment	Original
Ex.A06	09.06.2011	Courier cover opened	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-                                  

                                      -Nil-           

  Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                         Sd/-

President                           Lady Member                             Male Member