DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 69 of 2018

Sri Joy Das,

S/O. Dr. Bhupendra Chandra Das,

Resident of East Shibnagar,

P.O. Agartala College,

P.S.-East Agartala,

Dist.-West Tripura    .…..............…..........................Complainant.

 

 

       -VERSUS-

 

1. The Manager,,

DTDC Corporate Office,

DTDC House, No.269 Lahari Towers,

1st Main, Albert Victor Road, Chamrajpet,

Bangalore-560018.

 

2. The Manager,

DTDC Office,

Near Avtar Complex Naharani Path, Last Gate Guwahati,

Guwahati-781006.

 

3. The Manager,

DTDC Corporate Office,

Jagannath Bari Road, Colonel Chowmuni,

Krishna Nagar, Agartala.

Dist.-West Tripura,  ......................................... Opposite parties.

 

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : In person. 

                                                                    For the O.P. Nos. 1,2 & 3 : Sri Bimal Deb, Advocate.                                                                                                                                  

  

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:      26 /02/2019

J U D G M E N T

The complainant Sri Joy  Das, set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 complaining deficiency of service by the O.Ps. 

  The complainant's case, in brief, is that the complainant had purchased five(05) liters of organic virgin coconut oil from Pairu Organics, Mysore, Karnataka and booked it on 21/08/2018 with the DTDC Courier Service, Bangalore i.e. O.P. No.1 which was to be delivered at Complainant's address situated at East Shivnagar, Agartala. The consignment number of the booked item was D43954881 as per Exhibit-I series. The Complainant however, in his complaint has mentioned the consignment number as D4395488. The booked item according to the Complainant was organic virgin coconut oil  for medicinal and therapeutic purpose as part of Ayurveda treatment for the Complainant's father who had been suffering from Cancer.  The complainant has alleged in his complaint that as the booked item did not reach the destination at Agartala within the reasonable period of time he had to approach the DTDC Courier Service at Agartala several times and spoke to the Manager, Office of the DTDC, Jaganathbari Road, Colonel Chowmuhani, Krishnanagar but his efforts evoked no positive response from the DTDC, Courier Service. The Complainant had also sent E-mail to the DTDC customer service stating his grievances on 15/09/2018 regarding the non delivery the booked item. Even then he did not receive any reply from the DTDC, Courtier Service. The Complainant alleged that due to negligent act and deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. he had suffered harassment and mental agony as his father was deprived of getting proper medical treatment due to non delivery of the booked item. The Complainant has thus prayed for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- against the O.Ps. Hence this case. 

  The O.Ps. have resisted the case by filing written statement and have denied deficiency of service on their part. The O.Ps.  however have admitted booking of one packet by the Complainant from Bangalo;re on 21/08/2018. The O.Ps. have alleged that when the packet was ready for dispatch it was detected that there were liquid contents  which is contrary to the terms and conditions of booking and that they tried to return it to the consignor but failed to do so. The O.Ps. however denied about the complainant's making inquiry with the DTDC Courier service Agartala and contacting with it's Manager concerning non delivery of the booked item. 

The O.Ps. have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint taking the plea that the O.Ps. did not commit any deficiency of service towards the Complainant. 

2. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:

In support of the Complaint, the Complainant has Examined himself as PW-1 and produced 03 documents. The documents are marked  Exhibit-I series. 

The O.Ps. did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence to controvert the claim of the Complainant. 

 POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

3.  Based on the contentions raised by both the parties the following issues are made for determination:  

   (I). Whether  there was  any deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. towards the Complainant?

    (ii). Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any  compensation/relief ?

4. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  It is evident from the case record that there is no denial by the O.Ps. about booking of the packet item by the Complainant with the O.P. No.1 on 21/08/2018. It is also admitted and established fact that the packet item was not delivered to the addressee though it was expected to be delivered within a reasonable time. From the complaint as well as evidence-in-Chief of the Complainant it is found that the item which was booked by the Complainant was coconut oil which was to be used for medicinal and therapeutic purpose as part of Ayurveda treatment for the Complainant's father who had been suffering from Cancer. The copy of the consignment sheet issued by the DTDC, Courier Service under Exhibit-I series shows that the Complainant paid Rs.800/- for sending the item. Since the O.P. No.1 had received the item from the complainant and obtained service charge, it is his contractual liability to deliver the item to addressee at the destination point. The O.Ps. however had failed to discharge their liability reasons best known to them. The Complainant has submitted copy of track shipment status / consignment status report of DTDC, India in respect of the item sent by the Complainant under consignment No. D43954881 as per Exhibit-I series. It appears from the track shipment status report that packet item was booked on 21/08/2018 from Bangalore and it was received at Agartala on 24/08/2018. So it is proved and established that the item which was booked by the complainant at Bangalore under consignment No.D43954881 had reached  Agartala on 24/08/2018 but unfortunately the item was not handed over to the addressee. 

  In this case the Complainant had purchased organic virgin coconut oil from Pairu Organics, Mysore, Karnataka and booked the item with the O.P. No.1, the Service provider on payment of due charge but the said item had not been delivered to the addressee. For such deficiency of service of the O.Ps. the complainant according to us is competent to file the complaint. 

  We find that due to the negligence of the DTDC Courier service the addressee could not get the item. 

  It is pertinent to mention here that the O.Ps. have not adduced evidence either oral or documentary to controvert the allegations made by the Complainant against the O.Ps.

  It is evident from the cross examination version of the Complainant(PW-I) that the O.Ps. had put forward a suggestion to the complainant the price of the lost goods which he had booked with the O.Ps., but the said suggestion was however denied by the Complainant. This part of the evidence indicates that the O.Ps. have admitted the booked item had been lost.

  The DTCT Courier Service is expected to deliver articles speedily. People have much trust and faith on the DTDC Courier Service for quick delivery of articles but the trust was shattered by the negligent act committed by the DTDC personnel in the case of the Complainant. The DTDC can not avoid it's responsibility for the negligence of their workers. This is a clear case of deficiency of service by the DTDC Courier Service who had failed to deliver the booked item to the addressee.  The Complainant is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps. The Complainant suffered mental harassment and anxiety for the non delivery of the booked item. 

    For all the fore going reasons, we find and hold that the Complainant has succeed in establishing that the O.Ps. were negligent and deficient in rendering  service to him. That beings so, he is entitled to get compensation. 

  Both the issues framed above are decided accordingly in favour of the Complainant.

5. In the result, the Complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the Complainant is allowed on contest. It is hereby directed that the O.Ps. will pay Rs.8,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for causing mental agony and harassment together with Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. The O.Ps. are to pay the aforesaid compensation of Rs.11,000/-(Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,000/-) in total within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made. 

 

 

ANNOUNCED

 

 SRI BAMDEB MAJUMDER

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

 WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.