DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 411  of  2022

 

Sri Sumit Majumder,

S/O- Sri Karunamoy Majumder,

Jaynagar, Hariganga Basak Road(Extn),

Battala, P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura District- 799001.

Office Address:-

C/O- S. GEE & GEE,

Chartered Accountants,

H.G.B. Road(Extn),

Battala, P.O. Agartala,

P.S. West Agartala, 

West Tripura- 799001. ..............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Managing Director,

 

2. The Manager,

DTDC Courier and Cargo Limited,

DTDC Bhawan, 404/405,

Kaji Nazrul Islam Sarani,

VIP Road, Raghunathpur,

Kolkata- 700059.

 

2. The Branch Manager, 

 

3. The-In-Charge,

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Koushik Paul,

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. Sri Sumit Majumder here-in-after called “the complainant” has filed this complaint against the O.Ps pleading inter alia that he has been working as Senior Auditor in “S. GEE and GEE Charter Accountants' Firm” at Agartala. During his work he always received guidance and supervision of Sri Ansu Baran Das, one of the Chartered Accountant of this firm and the complainant earned confidence of Sri Ansu Baran Das. 

1.1 The complainant was invited by Sri Ansu Baran Das by letter of invitation and also received a telephonic call on 29.10.2020 to attend to marriage ceremony of the daughter of Ansu Baran Das to be held on 27.11.2020. Smt. Mitul Das, the daughter of Ansu Baran Das was known to the complainant from her childhood and was extremely affectionate to the complainant.

1.2 On 02.11.2020 the father of the complainant had not been feeling well who was effected by Covid- 19 virus on 25.08.2020. As such, the complainant got admitted his father in GB Hospital, Agartala. As such the complainant thought it proper not to leave the station leaving his 83 years old ailing father. Hence, did not attend the marriage ceremony of the daughter of Sri Ansu Baran Das.

1.3 The complainant sent a Saree for the beloved daughter of Ansu Baran Das with request to dress her by the Saree on the occasion of “Basi- Biye” which is a  part of Hindu custom during marriage. Consequently the complainant had sent a 'Dhakai Jamdani Saree' at a cost of Rs.5,300/- on 03.11.2020 and that very day from the office of the O.P. No.4, Agartala, booked the saree in a sealed packet to be sent at the address of Sri Ansu Baran Das, 163 Anandamath, Block A, P.O. - Ichapur, Nawabganj, P.S. - Noapara, District- 24 Parganas, West Bengal, Pin- 743144 and paid the charge of Rs.170/-. 

1.4 The complainant as such booked the saree to be reached to the destination at the addressee 19 days ahead of the scheduled date of the marriage of Mitul Das, daughter of Sri Ansu Baran Das. 

1.5 After 5 days of booking the saree the complainant enquired with respected Ansu Baran Das whether the consignment sent through O.P. No.4 reached or not but it was confirmed by Sri Ansu Baran Das that no such consignment reached him. However, the complainant nurished every reasonable hope that before the date of marriage the consignment shall reach but on the date of marriage ceremony also Sri Ansu Baran Das informed that no such consignment reached the addressee. 

1.6 In view of the facts narrated above the complainant was not only highly shocked but was also embarrassed because of his deep respect towards Ansu Baran Das and his immense love and affection towards Smt. Mitul Das.

1.7 The complainant on 09.12.2020 sent a Demand Notice to O.P. No.1 demanding Rs.5 lakhs as compensation but to no good. Hence, this case seeking compensation for Rs.5 lakhs. 

 

2. The O.Ps No.1 to 4 in their written objection pleaded inter alia that the dispute raised by the complainant is not a consumer dispute and the complainant sent the consignment with no risk coverage.

2.1 The consignment was booked on 04.11.2020 but the complaint is filed on 06.12.2022 beyond the period of limitation of 2 years from the date of booking. It is further pleaded that the O.P. attempted to deliver the consignment on 09.12.2020, 10.12.2020 and 11.12.2020 but the addressee denied to receive the consignment. Hence, the consignment was returned back at Agartala on 12.12.2020.   

2.2 It is also submitted by the O.Ps that the case is not maintainable in view of the fact that no statutory notice of claim under the Carriage of Goods Act, 2007 was served. 

3. The complainant submitted evidence on affidavit and documents.

3.1 The O.Ps also submitted evidence on affidavit and documents. 

4. The following points emerged for discussion and decision:-

P O I N T   No.(i):- 

5. According to Learned Counsel of the O.P. the  consignment was booked on 04.11.2020 and case was filed on 06.12.2022 as such being not within the period limitation of 2 years the case is barred by limitation.

5.1 We find that the case was filed on 24.11.2022 as argued by Learned Counsel Mr. K.K. Roy. We fail to appreciate the argument of the Learned Counsel of the O.P. that the cause of action arose on 04.11.2020 the date of booking the consignment because on that date the complainant had no reason to be apprehensive that the consignment will not be delivered to the addressee and therefore, it can not be said that cause of action had arisen on 04.11.2020. Rather, the cause of action arose on 27.11.2020 the date of marriage when being enquired by the complainant, Sri Ansu Baran Das informed that the consignment did not reach. Therefore, even if 27.11.2020 is considered to be date of cause of action, the case was filed on 24.11.2022 within 2 years from date of first cause of action. Further the complainant served Demand Notice to the O.P. on 09.12.2020 seeking compensation which was not replied by the O.P. Hence, cause of action arose again on 09.12.2020. Again the O.Ps nowhere pleaded that the consignment was ultimately returned back to the complainant at Agartala as such the cause of action is continuing one.         

 

P O I N T    NO. (ii) & (iii) : -

6. On perusal of the documents submitted by the complainant particularly the receipt by the O.P. No.2 through its agent Sumit Majumder shows that all the columns of the receipts were not even filled up i.e., description of the contents, value of the goods etc. and no signature of the complainant was taken on such receipt.

6.1 We have considered the consignment track report submitted by the O.Ps to prove the fact that the O.Ps attempted to deliver the consignment but the addressee denied to receive such consignment but on perusal of the track report we do not find the consignment No. K26401751 anywhere mentioned on such track report. We also do not find the dates  i.e., 09.11.2020, 10.11.2020 and 11.11.2020 mentioned in such track report wherein there was any such attempt to deliver the consignment number mentioned above and that the addressee denied to receive the consignment. Rather, we find that on 11th December, 2020 at 11.56 hours there is a note that receiver refused delivery and similar noting on 10th December, 2020 but who is the receiver, what is the address of the receiver, what is the consignment number nothing are mentioned thereon. As such, it can not be assumed that the addressee denied to receive such consignment.

6.2 Hon'ble State Commission of Himachal Pradesh in M/S Trakon Courier Pvt. Ltd. and Anrs. Vs. Mrs. Vijay Sing reported in 2018 Vol. 2 CLT 425(HP) was pleased to expound that such blank receipt can not be used and it tantamounts to illegal trade practice. 

7. In the case at hand, the O.P. No.4 is guilty of illegal trade practice by issuing blank receipt to the complainant and as such receipt shows malafide intention of the O.P. No.4 for which the O.P. No.4 is guilty of deficiency in service. Therefore, for the illegal trade practice no such notice as argued by Learned Counsel of the O.P. is necessary to maintain a complaint before the Consumer Commission seeking compensation for deficiency in service. 

8. Both the points are decided accordingly in favour of the complainant.

9. In the result, considering the value of the cost of booking, the relationship between the complainant and the addressee and the consequent mental shock and embarrassing suffered by the complainant, we feel it appropriate to award a compensation of Rs.21,200/- which is 4 times of the value of the consignment along with a further sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost. The O.Ps are jointly and severally responsible to pay this amount to the complainant within 30 days from today, failing which this amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% P.A. from today till the date of actual payment.   

10. The case stand disposed off.

11. Supply copy of this Final Order to both the parties free of cost.   

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.