Date of filing: 04-01-2014
Date of Disposal:18-07-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A.,B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Friday, the 18th day of July, 2014
C.C.NO.05/2014
Between:
Ravi Solar Systems rep. by its
Proprietor, G.C.Ravindranath
S/o Late Chittaranjan,
MIG-248, Housing Board Colony,
Ananthapuramu. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The Managing Director,
DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,
Regd. Office, DTDC House,
No.3, Victoria Road,
Bengaluru – 47, Karnataka.
- The Manager,
DTDC Courier, Pallavi Towers,
Opposite to Canara Bank,
Subash Road,
- Sri A.Sreenivasulu,
DTDC Courier Agent,
Padmavathi Enterprises,
Shop No.6, Upstairs,
Near Vysya Hostel,
Raju Road
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Haranath & Sri D.Shyam Sunder, Advocates for the complainant and Opposite parties 1 to 3 called absent and set-exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on complainant’s side, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC):- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming a sum of Rs.7,650/- towards the cost of Solar PV Panel, Rs.10,000/- towards damages, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of courier charges in total 28,650/- and grant such other relief or reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The complainant is a permanent resident of Ananthapuramu and doing business under the name and style of Ravi Solar Systems. On 26-05-2013 the complainant received an online order for supply of 100W/12V Solar PV Panel from one Dr.Parthapratim Datta, Registrar of Plastic Surgery, Assam Medical College, Quarter No.RF6, RCC Flats, M Line, Dibrugarh, Assam. The cost of the said Solar PV Panel is Rs.7,650/-. The complainant has sent the said item through opposite party No.3 vide receipt No.H14765854 to Dr.Parthapratim Datta by paying Rs.1,000/- towards Courier Charges. On 09-06-2013 the complainant received a message through e-bay.in from Dr.Parthapartim Datta that item, which was sent through the opposite party No.3 has been received in a damaged condition. Hence the same was not accepted by the consignee Dr.Parthapratim Datta.
3. Then the complainant approached the opposite parties 2 & 3 and enquired about the damaged condition of the said item. The opposite parties 2 & 3 neither informed about the delivery of the goods nor status of the goods where it was lying. On 22-06-2013 the complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite parties 2 & 3 directing them to pay the amount for deficiency of service. The said notice has been served. Though the notice was served there was no reply from the opposite parties. Then the complainant having no option filed this complaint against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.7,650/- towards the cost of the item, Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the courier charges, Rs.10,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.
4. The opposite parties 1 to 3 called absent and set-exparte.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties
1 to 3 ?
2. To what relief?
6. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A5 documents.
7. Heard on complainant’s side.
8. POINT NO.1:- The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is doing business in Solar Panels under the name and style of Ravi Solar Systems and the complainant is the sole Proprietor. On 26-05-2013 the complainant received an online order for supply of 100W/12V Solar PV Panel from one Dr.Parthapratim Datta, Registrar of Plastic Surgery, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the cost of the said Solar panel is Rs.7,650/- and the same was sent through opposite party No.3 on 27-05-2013 under receipt No.H14765854 to Dr.Parthapratim Datta by paying a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards courier charges.
9. The counsel for the complainant submitted that on 09-06-2013 the complainant has received the message through e-bay.in from Dr.Parthapratim Datta that the item which sent to him through opposite party No.3 has been received in a damaged condition and further he has informed the complainant that as the parcel was damaged, he has not taken delivery of the said item. The counsel submitted that Ex.A2 clearly shows that the consignee did not take delivery of the goods as it was in a damaged condition. The counsel further submitted that the complainant approached the opposite parties 2 & 3 and enquired about the damaged parcel for which the opposite parties have neither returned the said item to the complainant nor disclosed where the parcel was lying. Then the complainant has also issued a legal notice to the opposite parties 2 & 3 directing them to pay the amount for deficiency of service and loss of the item. The counsel for the complainant submitted that though the said notice was served on them, there was no reply from the opposite parties. Thus they have committed deficiency of service and hence the complainant was subjected to loss towards the cost of the item sent and also suffered mental agony.
10. The counsel for the complainant submitted that having no option the complainant has filed this complainant claiming a sum of Rs.7,650/- towards the cost of the item, Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the courier charges, Rs.10,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.
11. After hearing the arguments of the complainant and perusing the documents submitted by the complainant, Ex.A1, which is courier receipt of the opposite parties show that the item was sent to one Dr.Parthapratim Datta, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, Assam by the complainant on 27-05-2013. As seen from Ex.A1 there is no mention of the value of the goods in the receipt and there is no mention of the amount collected towards courier charges as argued by the counsel for the complainant.
12. Further Ex.A2 document, which is the message sent by the consignee through e-bay.in clearly shows that the item sent by the complainant was received in a damaged condition, hence the consignee did not accept the same. Basing on the message received by the complainant, the complainant has issued a legal notice, which is marked as Ex.A3 and Ex.A4 are postal receipts of the notices sent to the opposite parties 2 & 3 and Ex.A5 are the postal acknowledgments.. Ex.A3, A4 and A5 clearly establish that the complainant has sent notice to the opposite parties and received by the opposite parties, but there was no reply for the said notice. Ex.A2 clearly establishes that the item sent by the complainant was received by the consignee in a damaged condition and the same was rejected by the consignee. In the above circumstances, it is the duty of the opposite parties 1 to 3 either to deliver the said goods to the consignee or return the same to the consignor, but in the instant case, the opposite parties neither delivered the goods to the consignee nor returned to the consignor. Further when the complainant issued a legal notice, it is the duty of the opposite parties to return the goods, which was booked through them, even-though it was in a damaged condition and give sufficient explanation for the damage or to compensate the complainant for the damages. But the opposite parties have failed to do so and caused deficiency of service to the complainant. Hence, we are of the view that the opposite parties have caused deficiency of service to the complainant for which they are liable. As seen from Ex.A1 courier receipt, there is no mention of the value of the goods. Further the courier charges are also not mentioned. But the counsel submitted that they have paid Rs.1,000/- towards courier charges. Hence the arguments of the counsel for the complainant that they have paid Rs.1,000/- towards courier charges is not established. In the above circumstances, the cost of 100W/12V Solar PV Panel as per Ex.A2 document is Rs.7,650/- has to be compensated by the opposite parties to the complainant as they have neither delivered nor returned the goods to the complainant. Further as the opposite parties have caused deficiency of service, they are also liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency of service.
13. POINT NO.2 – In the result, the complaint is partly allowed by directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.7,650/- towards cost of Solar PV Panel, Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the complaint within one month from the date of this order; failing which interest shall be paid @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 18th of July, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Original Courier Receipt No.H-14765854 dt.27-05-2013 issued by 3rd opposite party to
the complainant.
Ex.A2 - Print out of the message in e-bay.in.
Ex.A3 - Office copy of the legal notice dt.22-06-2013 got issued by the complainant to the
Opposite parties 2 & 3.
Ex.A4 - Postal Receipts dt.25-06-2013 for sending legal notices to the opposite parties
2 & 3.
Ex.A5 - Postal acknowledgments signed by the opposite parties 2 & 3.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
Typed JPNN
