The complainant’s case germen in the petition and W.V and other material on records is that complainant had sent one item through DTDC /OP courier to Alpesh Bharodiya, IGS GROUP, 201, Royal Arcade, Surat, Gujrat-395006 on 24.06.2015 vide consignment no.K80649963 by paying Rs.110/- as charge (Annexure 4). But that same articles was not reached to addressee upto 3.8.2015 nor the same was returned back to the complainant . The complainant requested the oP DTDC, courier to ensure delivery of item at the proper addressee without further delay. The complainant made several correspondence and requested the oP to do the needful according to the consignment booked on 24.06.2015. Inspite of that the articles has not been delivered. Accordingly the case has been filed by the complainant.
The op no.2 and 3 appeared and contested the case by filing WV denying inter alia all material allegations . It is stated by the Op no. 2 and 3 that limitation of liability is only Rs.100/- for each shipment. That shipment as booked as per terms and conditions where both parties agreed and signed the contract and as well as consignment. Accordingly, 2 and 3 prays for dismissal of case.
The OP no.1 contested the case by filing WV denying inter alia all material allegations. It is stated by the oP no.1 that he had sent the articles at the correct address and correct way and he has no laches to perform the duty. So the Op no.1 prays for dismissal of the case.
Complainant filed one Annexure 4 DTDC courier receipt on 24.6.2015 bearing no. K80649963. Annexure 5 one letter addressed to the Manager, Marketing DTDC, Annexure 6
and another tracking result. Both sides have filed evidence in chief and Writen Notes of Argument.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
Point no.1
The complainant sent one article through the OP no.1 by paying Rs.110/- so the complainant is a consumer under the oPs u/s 2(d)(i) of the C.P.Act, 1986. Thus, the point no.1 is answered in favour of the complainant.
Point no.2 and 3
Both the points are taken up together for easiness of discussion.
It is admitted by the oP no.1, Op no.2 and 3 in their Evidence in chief and Written version that they sent the articles given by the complainant addressed to addressee as per Annexure 4. It is alleges that the Op did not pay the articles to the addressee. The complainant has filed Annexure 4 to show that he paid Rs.110/- as charge in column 8 of the receipt. There is no averment of Op no.1 to 3 regarding the allegation that the articles was received by the
addressee. The complainant has informed the Manager, DTDC vide Annexure 5 on 3.8.2015. There is no whisper of Op no.1 to 3 that the articles was dispatched properly to the addressee. Accordingly, it is deficiency in service by the oP no.1 to 3 by not serving the articles to the addressee . So after deliberation of all the material of this case , particularly the annexure 4 and 5 and hold that articles was not delivered and Op must give compensation as per prayer of the complainant in para (f) of the petition of complaint. Accordingly it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 115 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest. The Op no.1 , 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.653/- to the complainant as his original claim . The Ops are also jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant towards compensation for mental agony , harassment . The Ops are further jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards litigation cost.
The above orders shall comply by the Ops within 30 days from the date of this order, i.d. Rs.200/- per day shall be deposited by the OP to the Consumer Legal Aid fund in addition to the amount mentioned above till full realisation.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
