BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 18th August 2015
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 166/2015
Complainant/s:
Dinesh.S, Age: 40 years, Occ: Tours & Travels Business, C/o.Ganesh Tours & Travels, Opp.Civil Court Circle, Dharwad.
(By Sri.M.G.Gali, Adv.)
v/s
Respondent/s:
The Manager, Blue Dart Express Ltd., BDEL, Ground Floor, Maria Arcade, Opp. Hotel Mytri Palace, Vivekanand Nagar, P.B.Road, Dharwad 580004.
(By Sri.P.S.Udikeri, Adv.)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.1 lakh towards compensation for negligence and deficiency in service, to grant cost of the proceedings and such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant is the owner of Ganesh Tours & Travels Agency having working place at Court Circle Dharwad & running the business of tours and travels. The working hours of the complainant from 6 AM to 10.30 PM daily without closure working on shiftwise arrangement. The complainant has opened an account in ICICI Bank. Accordingly applied for ATM/Credit card facility. As such ICICI Bank dispatched ATM/Credit card through respondent company from Delhi to Dharwad after observing all formalities. The respondent without visting the complainant’s address recklessly and negligently returned the consignment with a report delivery attempted, addressee premises was closed from 30.01.2015 to 04.02.2015. The said report is false and baseless which amounts to deficiency in service. After hearing the report from the ICICI Bank with regard to the endorsement of the respondent the complainant got mentally shocked and suffered both financial and business loss. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to respondent on 26.02.2015 but the respondent sent evasive reply. Hence, the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondent appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments. Further the respondent taken contention that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and complainant is not a consumer as defined under CP Act and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Among such other admissions and denials the respondent taken contention that after reach of consignment from consignee on 30.01.2015, attempted to deliver the same on the same day by Mr.B.A.Devraj PDA Staff of respondent. But staff unable to trace the address provided on the consignment as there was no available contact addressee for delivery. Once again through BD staff Mr.Neelkanthgouda Patil on 05.02.2015 attempts were made. However the consignee refused to accept the delivery on that day. Again on 06.02.2015 PDA staff Mr.Devraj attempted to deliver. Again the complainant refused to accept the same. Later the said consignment was returned to shipper/consumer i.e. ICICI Bank Delhi on 09.02.2015 as there was no any communication received from consignee. Further the respondent averred, the complainant is not a consumer the transaction is between ICICI Bank /consumer and the answering respondent as such complaint do not comes within the purview of consumer. Accordingly prays for dismissal of the complaint. So also the respondent reveals the nature of the transaction as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the airway bill, according to the terms and conditions the complainant is not entitled for any relief, even for the notice the respondent suitably replied narrating the true facts of the case and prays for dismissal of the complaint contending that the respondent has not committed any deficiency in service, the delivery could not be made as the complainant reluctant to receive the consignment and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents, apart from argument complainant relied on case laws. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- Affirmatively
- Accordingly
- As per order
Reasons
Points 1 and 2
5. On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the respondent received consignment from the ICICI bank to deliver the same to the complainant.
6. Now the question to be determined is, whether the respondent had committed any deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.
7. Since the facts have been discussed in detail which requires no repetition.
8. As per the own admission of the complainant the consignment in question is received by the complainant from the consignee ICICI Bank Delhi after return it from the respondent. On perusal of document Ex.C1 Trackdart- tracking details endorsement it glance on 3 occasions the respondent had made attempts to deliver but could not deliver the same as the premises was closed during the date and time the respondent attempt to deliver the same. In rebuttal to this Ex.C1 the complainant relied on Ex.C3 ticket booking statement. On perusal of the said document it reveals on the alleged date the complainant’s firm was working . By looking into these 2 documents it is not comingforth for what purpose the endorsement were made in the respective document and at what instance and for what reason delivery was not made. But as per the say of the respondent the complainant refused to accept the delivery. So also why the complainant refused to receive the delivery also not comingforth. When it was enquired with the complainant in the open court who was present on the date of argument the complainant said, there is no ill will between him and respondent, during that time when it was asked why it was happened the complainant did not replied. On keen observation of the conduct of the respondent the respondent at one stretch says, the complainant’s firm was closed at the time of delivery and another stretch he reveals he could not able to trace the address of the complainant. Hence, he could not able to delivery the same and return. Under those circumstances taking into consideration of Ex.C3 ticket book statement of the complainant’s firm it is evident that the complainant’s firm was working on all those days. Under those circumstances benefit of doubt is given in favour of the complainant and non delivery of the consignment to the complainant by respondent is accounts for deficiency in service by the respondent. Hence, the complainant established his case of deficiency in service against the respondent. Accordingly complainant is entitled for the relief as sought.
9. In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmative & accordingly .
10. Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following
Order
Complaint is partly allowed. The respondent is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the compensation and Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing to comply the same, the said amount shall carry interest @9% P.A. from thereon till realization.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 18th day of August 2015)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
MSR
