1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is an employee of HAL, Sunabeda and applied for a higher post to NMDC LTD., and sent his application along with relevant documents to NMDC Ltd. through OP.1 vide Consignment No.V18854822 and Security Pouch No.11413106 dt.08.12.2014 on payment of Rs.180/- towards service charges but the OP instead of delivering the consignment to the NMDC Ltd. returned the consignment to the complainant due to damage.  It is submitted that the condition of the packet/letter was intact and in good condition but the OP deliberately did not deliver the application form to the addressee for which the complainant was unable to appear the interview and sustained severe mental agony.  It is further submitted that the complainant made several correspondences to the Ops about return of the packet and demanded compensation but the Ops did not prefer to answer.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund the service charges of Rs.180/- with interest and to pay Rs.1.20 lacs towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     In spite of valid notice, the OP.1 did not prefer to participate in this proceeding.  On being served the OP.2 fled counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the consignment was returned to the complainant only because of the damage condition.  It is contended that the DTDC Express Ltd is one of the best courier Company of India and will never intended to harass any of his customers.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant with costs.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  The OP.2 also filed a document.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case booking of consignment by the complainant with OP.1 containing some documents on 08.12.2014 at Sunabeda is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that the OP after few days returned the said consignment to the complainant without delivering the same to the addressee with reason that the packet was damaged.  The case of the complainant is that the packet at the time of return by OP was intact and hence the Ops have deliberately did not deliver the application form to the addressee.  The OP.2 in his reply also stated that due to damage condition of the packet it could not be delivered to the addressee.  Now it is to be seen as to what intention of Ops was there which caused non delivery of the packet to the addressee.

5.                     It was an admitted fact that the consignment was handed over by the complainant to OP.1 on 08.12.2014.  From the tracking report of the consignment it was seen that the consignment was booked on 09.12.2014 at Sunabeda and it arrived at the destination on 16.12.2014.  In the remark column of the tracking result it was seen that “Shipment returned due to receiver refuse delivery due to damage”.  Hence it was ascertained that the consignment has reached at the Hyderabad where the consignment has to be delivered but the addressee refused to receive as the packet was in damaged condition.  In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any intention of the Ops behind non delivery of the article after it was reaching the destination.  The Ops have also returned the consignment with reason to the complainant prudently.  As such we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

6.                     It is also further seen that the OP.1 has received the consignment in good condition and if it got damaged during transit, then it can be said that due to mishandling of the packet it got damaged.  Hence the OP.1 is liable for damage of consignment due to which it was returned to the complainant.  However for such damage, the strength of cover and other factors are also equally responsible.  The complainant never stated that he had used good envelop which was not supposed to be damaged during transit or the Ops intentionally caused damage to the envelop.  On the other hand the Ops are also responsible for improper handling of the packet.  In the above circumstances, we feel for the damage of cover the OPs in some extent are liable for which the complainant sustained mental agony.  Hence the complainant is liable to get refund of Rs.180/- towards service charges with interest @ 12% p.a. from 09.12.2014.  Further considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel a sum of Rs.1500/- towards compensation and costs in his favour will meet the ends of justice.

7.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.180/- taken towards service charges with interest @ 12% p.a. from 09.12.2014 and to pay Rs.1500/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)