Tripura

West Tripura

CC/90/2015

Sri Ashok Majumder. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.J.K.Sen, Mr.R.Das.

28 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA  :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 90 of 2015

Sri Ashok Majumdar,
S/O- Late Gopal Ch. Majumdar,
Krishnanagar, Agartala,
West Tripura.                ...….…...Complainant.

VERSUS

The Manager,
DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,
Agartala Branch, HGB Road, 
Post Office Chowmuhani,
Agartala,West Tripura.            ..............Opposite party.

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
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        : Sri Jiban Krishna Sen,
                      Sri Rupak Das,
                      Advocates.

For the O.Ps                 : Sri Abhijit Gon Choudhury,
                      Sri Bimal Deb,
                      Advocates,    

                

        JUDGMENT   DELIVERED   ON:    28.06.16

 

J U D G M E N T
        This case arises on the petition filed by petitioner, Ashok Majumdar U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The gist of the case in short is that on 23.10.13 complainant booked a parcel with DTDC, Opposite Party for transmission of the same to Quantum School of Technology, Hostel Roorkee at Dehradun. The consignment was acknowledged and the charge for transmission Rs.320/- was received by DTDC. But the O.P. DTDC did not deliver the parcel. In the parcel 2 important books for the study of the son of petitioner at Dehradun was sent. But it never reached to the destination. O.P. did not explain the reasons for not sending the books in the parcel. As the goods not received the son of the petitioner suffered a lot in his studies. Legal notice was sent to the DTDC but no satisfactory response given. The consignment was not returned. For this deficiency of service petitioner claimed Rs.1,50,000/-. 

2.        Opposite party appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is contended that the petitioner could approach the arbitration Forum for redress. As per contract, in case of damage or loss the petitioner is entitled to get Rs.100/-only. The liability only stands to Rs.100/- as per terms and condition. There is no willful default  by DTDC. Therefore, there was no deficiency of service and petition is liable to be dismissed.

3.        On the basis of contention raised by the parties following points cropped up for determination.
        (I) Whether the petitioner booked the consignment in the DTDC and the same was not delivered to the receiver?
        (II) Whether there was deficiency of service by DTDC?

4.        Petitioner side produced the receipt, cash memo, AD Card, advocate's notice, reply, certificate by School of Technology.             Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of one witness, i.e., Ashok Majumdar, the complainant. 

5.        O.P. Produced no evidence and cross examined the P.W.
6.        On the basis of evidence as produced  we shall now determine the above points.
        
            Findings and decision:
7.        We have gone through the DTDC receipt and also cash memo of Joyram Library, legal notice given by advocate, Jiban Krishna Sen to DTDC, also the certificate of Quantum School of Technology. 

8.        Learned advocate for the O.P. pointed out that the legal notice was given on 12.12.13. In that legal notice date of booking the parcel is written 23.01.13. For this mistake DTDC could not search the parcel. In the second notice such error was rectified. But it was too late. Second notice was given on 06.10.15. After lapse of 2 years. For this inordinate delay DTDC could not trace out the consignment. Learned advocate also argued that claim therefore is time barred.
9.        Learned advocate for the petitioner argued that in the receipt itself the number of consignment, date of booking is written. O.P. DTDC is aware about it. But no proper step was taken for discovery of lost item. 

10.        From the evidence it is found that consignment was booked in the year 2013. O.P. through advocate informed about the missing of the consignment by a letter on 10.01.14. Again another legal notice was sent on 06.10.15. The case filed on 19.10.15. within 2 years from the date of booking. Petitioner has the legal right to approach this Consumer Forum to get redress. The cause of action arose at Agartala and O.P., DTDC also doing business at Agartala. Therefore, the claim is not time barred and this Forum as the jurisdiction to decide this dispute. We do not accept the contention of the O.P. that the claim is time barred in any way. 

11.        From the receipt it is clear that the consignment was booked on 23.10.13 by Ashok Majumdar, petitioner. The consignment was sent to Satyajit Majumdar at Dehradun. O.P. DTDC accepted the consignment also accepted the charges Rs.320/- for doing the service. But the service was not provided. In the W.S. nothing stated by DTDC to show any reasons for non delivery of the consignment. It is only stated in the W.S that in case of damage or mis-delivery maximum liability of DTDC is limited to Rs.100/-. This is one sided agreement. Terms and condition was imposed by DTDC without any consent of the customer. If there was any problem in sending the consignment DTDC could refuse to accept it and also could refuse to take any charges for transmission. For transmission Rs.320/- charged was taken and it is stated that liability is limited to Rs.100/- only. This is unfair trade practice which can not be appreciated.  Petitioner has statutory right to seek redress before this Consumer Forum. This statutory right can not be denied. In the contract documents he never signed. It was one sided. So, the contention of DTDC that liability limits up to Rs.100/- has no force to stand. 

12.        From the evidence on record it is found that petitioner purchased 2 books at the cost of Rs.950/- from Joyram library. Those books were sent to his son through DTDC. Books were  very important for study at Dehradun. But the DTDC negligently did not send it and also did not return it, till today those are not traceable. Even after filing of the case no step was taken for return of the parcel. It is pointed out that the number of consignment was not known to DTDC. DTDC itself given consignment number and for different customer consignment number is different. So why the consignment number could not be detected by DTDC is not feasible at all.
    
13.        From all this facts as disclosed and from the evidence it is clear that DTDC was doing unfair trade practice and also has deficiency of service. Petitioner therefore, is entitled to get compensation for the deficiency of service by O.P. Petitioner claimed Rs.1,50,000/- compensation. But cost of the 2 books as stated is not much. Such huge claim is unreasonable. It is true that the son of the petitioner suffered for the want of the books. But those books are available in the market and could have been sent by petitioner by any other means, through speed post or other courier service. So we consider that petitioner is entitled to get Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by DTDC. Petitioner is also entitled to get Rs.5000/- for cost of litigation. Both the points are decided accordingly.

14.        In view of our above findings over the two points this case is decided. As per our decision we direct the DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. to pay Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) in total to the petitioner as compensation and cost of litigation. The amount is to be paid within 2(two) months, if not paid it will  carry interest @ 9% P.A.             
                          Announced.

SRI A. PAL
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