Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/21/2016

T.M.Khadar Basha S/o. Mohammed Sait - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, DTDC Courriers and Cargo Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shri.Abdul Jaleel Zulfiqar

23 Jan 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:01.03.2016

DISPOSED      ON:23.01.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 21/2016

 

DATED:  23^rd JANUARY 2017

PRESENT: - SRI.T.N. SREENIVASAIAH   : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,  

 

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	T.M. Khadar Basha, S/oMohammed Sait, Age: 23 Years, R/o Upstair Aslam Gove Building, Beside Bada Makan Road, Chitradurg-577501.   (Rep by Sri. Abdul Jaleel Zulfiqar, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Manager, DTDC Couriers & Cargo Ltd., Lahari Tower, No.269, Albert Victor Road, Rayan Circle, Bangaluru-560 018.   2. The Proprietor, DTDC Courier Service Beside Pai Show Room, Opp: Shankar Talkies, Chitradurga-577501.   (Rep by Sri. H.B. Deviprasad, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and such other reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, on 18.05.2015 complainant ordered Apple I-Phone 6 handset bearing No.FSN:MOBEYHZ2YAXZMF2J WID:VB29683 IMEI SI. No.358359068319191 to Flipkart.Com Company through Online.  The complainant has paid Rs.45,192/- to W.S. Retail Services Pvt.Ltd., Delhi vide invoice and Bill No. DEL20150500246551.   After the payment, he received the handset through Blue Dart Courier on 25.05.2015 and noticed that, the handset was not matched to the commodity devices ordered, the same was returned to Flipkart.Com India Ltd., Khasra, No.435, Road No.4, Lal Dora Extension, Mahipalp, New Delhi-110037 through DTDC Courier, Chitradurga i.e., OP No.2 vide consignment No.*V.20853923, which covers the risk charges on 12.06.2015.   It is further submitted that, the same does not received by the receiver for the reasons that,  the receiver refused delivery at one point and shipment returned due to receiver not available on another point, the consignment returned to the complainant on 25.06.2015.  It is further submitted that, the consignment through OP No.2 the cartoon box was weighing 0.485 gms but, the same cartoon box when returned to office of OP No.2 was weighing only 0.330 gms.  It is further submitted that, while receiving the consignment from the OP No.2 it was surprised to see that, the cartoon box was found in a break open and said hand set was missing.  Complainant informed the same to the OP No.2.  OP No.2 forward the same to OP No.1 but, OP No.1 has not sent any satisfactory reply to the complainant and the handset Apple I-phone 6 has not been traced by the OPs, the same has been missed during transmit from Chitradurga to Delhi and Delhi to Chitradurga under the Courier Service.  Complainant lodged a complaint through online to the concerned authority.  The missing of the said hand set during transit period is a deficiency of service and hence, the OPs are liable to be prosecuted for the damages caused to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the cause of action to file this complaint is when the complainant issued a legal notice through his counsel on 05.12.2015 to OPs claiming compensation but, the OPs sent reply notice with false and untenable grounds to escape from their liability.  Therefore, the complainant respectfully prayed before this Forum to allow his complaint with cost. 

3.      On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. H.B. Deviprasad, Advocate and filed version stating that, the complaint is frivolous and the same is not maintainable either in law or on facts, the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  It is further stated that, the complainant booked the consignment bearing No.V20853923 on 12.06.2015 through OP No.1 and the same has been destined to Delhi.  The OP No.1 was not aware about the fact that, the complainant booked the consignment apple I Phone-6 handset and it is the obligation on the part of complainant to get his consignment insured with the OPs/transporter and the complainant has not disclosed the content of the consignment and also not declared the value of the consignment nor insured his consignment by paying risk coverage charges of the consignment and the OPs are not liable for any loss of the complainant.  It is further submitted that the consignment booked by the complainant was delivered to the destination but, the consignee refused to receive the consignment.  So, the consignment was sent back to the booking place and the same was returned to the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the complainant disclosed the about booking of mobile handset apple I phone 6 worth Rs.45,192/- only after receiving the consignment.  But, the OPs are only liable for pay a sum of Rs.500/- as per the terms of the enumerated in the consignment note.  It is further submitted that the complainant has not given any invoice copy at the time of booking the consignment.  In the absence of any risk coverage, the complainant is not entitled for any claim or compensation, the same was informed by the OP No.2 also.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.                

4.      Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-6 were got marked. On behalf of OP, one Sri. T.S. Seetharamaiah, the Authorized Signatory, has examined as DW-1 by filing the affidavit evidence and no documents have been got marked.   

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that:

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Negative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is the case of the complainant that, on 18.05.2015 complainant purchased Apple I-Phone 6 handset bearing No.FSN:MOBEYHZ2YAXZMF2J WID:VB29683 IMEI SI. No.358359068319191 to Flipkart.Com Company through Online.  By paying Rs.45,192/- vide invoice and Bill No.DEL20150500246551 and received the handset through Blue Dart Courier on 25.05.2015.  Complainant has noticed that, the handset was not matched to the commodity devices ordered, the same was returned to Flipkart.Com India Ltd., Khasra, No.435, Road No.4, Lal Dora Extnsion, Mahipalp, New Delhi-110037 through DTDC Courier, Chitradurga i.e., OP No.2 vide consignment No.*V.20853923, which covers the risk charges on 12.06.2015.   The same has  not received by the receiver for the reasons that,  the receiver refused delivery at one point and shipment returned due to receiver not available on another point, the consignment returned to the complainant on 25.06.2015.  The consignment through OP No.2 the cartoon box was weighing 0.485 gms but, the same cartoon box when returned to office of OP No.2 was weighing only 0.330 gms and while receiving the consignment from the OP No.2 it was surprised to see that, the cartoon box was found in a break open and said hand set was missing.  Complainant informed the same to the OP No.2 but, the OPs have not sent any satisfactory reply to the complainant and the handset Apple I-phone 6 has not been traced by the OPs, the same has been missed during transmit from Chitradurga to Delhi and Delhi to Chitradurga under the Courier Service.  Complainant lodged a complaint through online to the concerned authority but, it went in vain.   

 9.     In support of his contention, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the contents of complaint and relied on the documents like Retail Invoice marked as Ex.A-1, message taken on e-mail marked as Ex.A-2, Photos marked as   Ex.A-3, Legal Notice dated 05.12.2015 marked as Ex.A-4, Postal receipt and Postal Acknowledgement marked as Ex.A-5, Reply to the notice marked as Ex.A-6.

10.    On the other hand, it is argued by the OPs that, the complainant booked the consignment bearing No.V20853923 on 12.06.2015 through OP No.1 and the same has been destined to Delhi.  The OP No.1 was not aware about the fact that, the complainant booked the consignment apple I Phone-6 handset and it is the obligation on the part of complainant to get his consignment insured with the OPs/transporter and the complainant has not disclosed the content of the consignment and also not declared the value of the consignment nor insured his consignment by paying risk coverage charges of the consignment and the OPs are not liable for any loss of the complainant.  The consignment booked by the complainant was delivered to the destination but, the consignee refused to receive the consignment, the consignment was sent back to the booking place and the same was returned to the complainant.  The complainant stated about booking of mobile handset apple I phone 6 worth Rs.45,192/-, only after receiving the consignment.  As per the terms enumerated in the consignment note, the OPs are only liable for pay a sum of Rs.500/-.  The complainant has not given any invoice copy at the time of booking the consignment.  In the absence of any risk coverage, the complainant is not entitled for any claim or compensation, the same was informed by the OP No.2 also.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.               

 11.   On hearing the rival contentions of both parties and on perusal of the documents including the affidavit and documentary evidence, it clearly made out that, the complainant has ordered Apple I-Phone 6 handset through online by paying an amount of Rs.45,192/- vide Invoice and Bill No.DEL20150500246551 and the same has been received through Blue Dart Courier by the complainant on 25.05.2015.  After receipt of the same, he noticed that, handset Apple I-Phone 6 was not matched to the commodity he was ordered, as such, the same has been returned to Flipkart.com India Ltd., New Delhi through DTDC Courier, Chitradurga i.e., OP No.2 vide consignment No.*V.20853923 covering the risk charges on 12.06.2015.  The same was not received by the receiver for the reason that, the receiver refused delivery at one point and shipment returned due to receiver not available on another point, as such the consignment returned to complainant on 25.06.2015.    The contention of the complainant is that, at the time of booking the consignment, the same was weighing 0.485 gms, but, when he received back through courier, the same was weighing only 0.330 gms and the consignment he received by the courier was not matched with the item he was ordered.  But, the complainant has not disclosed about the contents in the booking consignment i.e., apple I phone 6 handset worth Rs.45,192/- and weighing 0.485 gms.  As per the terms and conditions enumerated in the booking note, the complainant must disclose about the contents and the value of the consignment in the cartoon box.  The complainant has not produced any document to show that, he has received the consignment weighting 0.330 gms instead of 0.485 gms and also he has not produced the material returned from the OPs instead of apple I phone 6 mobile handset before this Forum.  So, in the absence of such a material, we cannot believe that, the OPs have committed a deficiency of service or unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as negative.           

            12.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is dismissed. No costs.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 23/01/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. T.S. Ramaswamy, Authorized Signatory of OPs by way of affidavit evidence. 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Retail Invoice
02	Ex-A-2:-	Message taken on e-mail
03	Ex-A-3:-	Photos
04	Ex-A-4:-	Legal Notice dated 05.12.2015
05	Ex-A-5:-	Postal receipt and Postal Acknowledgement
06	Ex-A-6:-	Reply to the notice

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-NIL-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**