Present         (1)      Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)      Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order :  06.11.2015

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 19,000/- ( Rs. Nineteen Thousand only ) by way of damages for harassment and mental agony.
2. To pay Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty thousand only ) as litigation costs along with charges of application form and courier charges Rs. 500/- + 208/- = 708/- ( Rs. Seven hundred Eight only ).

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant passed B.Sc ( Engg.) 1^st class with distinction in the year 2011 and was in search of a suitable job.
2. The complainant applied for the post of Assistant Engineer ( Electrical) (Group B) in Irrigation Department, Haryana through Haryana Public Service commission, Panch kula to face interview vide its Advertisement No. 2 in scale of pay PB 2 ( Rs. 9300/- - 34800/-) + Rs. 5400/- grade pay.
3. The last day of submission of application was 19.11.2012, so complainant booked application form through DTDC blue ( speed express service) on 16.11.2012 through DTDC courier & cargo Ltd. (opposite party no. 3) and paid Rs. 208/- vide consignment no. V10711517. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
4. The opposite party no. 3 assured to the complainant that his application must be delivered before 19.11.2012 to the office of Haryana Public Service Commission Panchkula.
5. The complainant wanted to know about position of his application through web site but there was no trace. The complainant made contact to opposite party no. 3 and stated all story then opposite party no. 3 gave other receipt to the complainant of the same date 16.11.2012 in which it was shown that the courier was despatched under head DTDC lite which is lite express service while the complainant deposited Rs. 208/- for DTDC blue, which was speed express service, which is evident from receipt vide CN No. K58959151. ( Vide Annexure – 2 )
6. Having come to know about the position of the application became much surprised and then the complainant got the tracking results of the service from the web site, in which the complainant found that till 18.11.2012 the said application was at Patna and it was not sent by the opposite parties i.e. DTDC courtier. While the said application was given to the opposite party no. 3 to be sent through DTDC blue ( speed express service) on 16.11.2012 by depositing the adequate charges for said service. ( Vide Annexure – 3)
7. From the facts stated above it is clear that opposite parties will fully and negligent did not sent the application of the complainant by DTDC blue service and without the knowledge and consent of the complainant changed the pattern of the service as well as made in ordinate and unnecessary delay in sending the application due to which the candidature of the complainant was adversely effected and his application could not reach to its destination, which is clear cut deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties i.e. DTDC Courier.
8. Due to deliberate wilful delay in sending the application of the complainant and that also by DTDC lite ( lite express service ) specially in view of the facts that the complainant had paid charges of DTDC blue ( speed express service) and it was assured by opposite party no. 3, that the application must reach to its destination before last date of submission of application.
9. The complainant is a brilliant most intelligent student having good academic career due to the negligence and latches on the part of the opposite parties i.e DTDC courier the complainant could not avail his best opportunity of getting job Advertisement No. 2 by the Haryana Public  Service Commission , Pachkula, upon which the complainant got the compensation for mental harassment and mental agony to the negligence and deficient act of all the opposite parties i.e. DTDC courier. Which is wholly responsible. ( Vide Annexure – 4 )
10. The cause of action for the present case arose on 16.11.2012 when complainant booked the application form in office of opposite parties through DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.

It is mentioned that the entire cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the district and as such learned District Consumer Forum has got jurisdiction to try and hear the present complaint case.

11. For the purpose of pecuniary jurisdiction of this court the complainant has paid a court fee Rs. 500/- by way of postal order under Rule 9(A) Consumer Protection Amendment Rules.

3. The Opposite Party no. 1, 2 and 3 in their written statement has submitted as follows :-

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with ulterior motives of extracting amount of money not due to the complainant in law. It is submitted that the opposite party has extended full cooperation and there has been no deficiency in service provided by the answering opposite party.
2. The present complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed.
3. The contents of the complaint, which are not specifically dealt with in the succeeding paragraphs of this written statement, may kindly be treated as not accepted and are denied.
4. The statement made in complaint petition is regarding qualification and status of the complainant about which the answering opposite party does not have any knowledge and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.
5. The answering opposite party does not have any knowledge about the last date of submission of application form as mentioned in the complaint petition. However, it is true that the complainant has booked the consignment through DTDC blue.
6. It is relevant to mention that when the consignment was brought o Patna branch of DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. it was found that PIN Code was not under PIP service. The answering opposite party asked the franchisee to immediately inform the customer. The opposite party no. 3 immediately informed the customer and after getting his approval booked the consignment in DTDC Lite and handed over the consignment note to him and refunded the extra amount taken while booking DTDC blue. The consignment was booked in DTDC Lite after approval from the complainant. The consignment note of DTDC Lite has been handed over to the complainant by franchisee on the date of booking itself.

It is relevant to mention that the complainant has also not disclosed the nature of item booked. It was the bounden duty of the complainant to declare as to the nature of items booked. It is relevant to mention that at the time of booking, the booking staff specifically asked the complainant about the nature of consignment booked, upon which the complainant specifically replied that documents is being sent and booked. No assurance whatsoever has been given by booking staff to the complainant.

7. The allegation made in the complaint petition is false and fabricated and therefore specifically denied by answering opposite party. the consignment has already been delivered to the addressee. It is for complainant to explain as to why he waited for the last date for submission of form. Moreover, the answering opposite party does not have any knowledge about the last date of application form nor any assurance whatsoever has been given by the answering opposite party. The consignment has already been delivered. The detailed explanation in written statement. It is complainant to explain that

When was the application form published and why he waited for the last date instead of sending the same at the earlier date. For latches and negligence committed by complainant, answering opposite party cannot be held liable. There is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party.

8. It is respectfully submitted that the Brilliant Student does not wait for last date but only negligent student can wait for last date of application form despite knowing full well that usually 2 to 3 days are taken in delivery of consignment to Delhi and if in the middle there is Sunday then one more day is to be added and this also depends upon many circumstances and if condition are ideal. The answering opposite party has delivered the consignment to the addressee and there is neither any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of answering opposite party.
9. It is respectfully submitted that the company took all the Endeavour to deliver to the  consignment at destination but the consignment has been lost in transit.

The answering opposite party will like to draw the attention of this Forum towards one of the terms of Consignment note in the case of damage or loss of any consignment.

In the front of consignment note, it is clearly stipulated in bold letters “ Our liability for any loss or damage to the shipment is Rs. 500/- only”. After agreeing to this, the consigner has put his signature at the consignment note. The said consignment note has been annexed by complainant in complaint application itself.

10. The limited liability of answering opposite party in such matters has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Division of M/s Air Freight Ltd. ( AIR 1996 SC 2508). The judgment of the case applied to the instant case with full force.

4. The Complainant in his reply to the written statement has submitted as follows :-

1. The written statement along with affidavit filed by the opposite parties no. 1, 2 and 3 are false and fabricated only with a view to mislead to this Forum.
2. The complainant denied almost all the Para of written statement along with affidavit filed by the opposite parties. So far as the case law filed by the opposite parties is concerned those case law ( AIR 1996 SC 2508) do not apply to the fact and circumstances of the case and cannot relied upon.
3. In the Para 6 and 8 reply on merit of said written statement the opposite parties i.e. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd. by filing false affidavit that the opposite parties no. 3 after getting his approval from the complainant booked consignment in DTDC Lite and handed over the consignment note to the complainant and refunded the extra amount taken while booking DTDC blue. And the consignment has already been delivered to the addressee, evident from annexure – II Page No. 15 date and amount column Black and annexure – III Page No. 17, booking dated and time of consignment of DTDC Lite. Which was booked on Saturday 17.11.2012. but no explanation given by the opposite parties till 18.11.2012 the said application of the complainant at Patna, while the said application was given to the opposite party no. 3 to be sent through DTDC Blue ( Speed Express Service) on 16.11.2012 by disposing the adequate charges for the said service.

The opposite parties have mislead this Forum by suppressing the real facts and in placing the wrong facts and on this score this complaint petition is fit to be allowed.

4. It is submitted that from the above mentioned facts and circumstances as well as in the eye of law, the content in written statement filed by the opposite parties are not sustainable and complaint petition is fit to be allowed.
5. The written statement along with affidavit filed by the opposite parties are false and mislead this Forum by swearing false affidavit.
6. Under the above circumstances the complainant is filing a separate petition for section 13 clause (5) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for swearing false affidavit by opposite parties i.e. DTDC COURIER & CARGO LTD.  

It is the case of the complainant that he has dispatched his application to Haryana Public Service Commission, Panchkula on 16.11.2012 while the last date of receiving the form in the Commission office for the post of Assistance Engineer ( Electrical ) ( Group B ) Irrigation Department, Haryana on 19.11.2012. The complainant has asserted that opposite party no. 1 has assured him that aforesaid application will be delivered before 19.11.2012 through Speed Post and as such Rs. 208/- was charged ( Vide Annexure – 1 ). From Annexure – 3 it appears that the aforesaid application was received by addressee at Panchkula on 23.11.2012 at 4:10 A.M. through opposite party no. 3. It is the case of the complainant that he has dispatched the letter through opposite party no. 2 then opposite party no. 2 has given the same to opposite party no. 3 and as such his application could not be received by addressee till 19.11.2012 and as such he has lost opportunity of being appointed as Assistant Engineer as he could not participate in the appointment procedure. The opposite party no. 2 has asserted that as the complainant has not written PIN CODE of the addresseeand due to non mentioning of PIN CODE speed post could not be sent and as such with consent of the complainant the application sent through opposite party no. 3 who is franchisee of opposite party no. 2. The opposite party no. 2 has asserted in Para – 6 of his written statement that as no PIN CODE was mentioned hence opposite party no. 2 asked opposite party no. 3 to inform the complainant and as such opposite party no. 3 informed the complainant about non mentioning of PIN CODE and with approval of the complainant the aforesaid application was sent through opposite party no. 3 which was delivered.

The complainant by filling rejoinder/reply of the written statement of the opposite party no. 2 and 3 has denied the aforesaid fact of according his consent for sending his letter through opposite party no. 3. The aforesaid fact mentioned in the reply of the complainant to the written statement denied by opposite party no. 2 and 3 by filling a rejoinder which was affidavited on 10.11.2014.

It appears from judicial record that despite filling of written statement in order sheet dated 09.10.2014 due to human error a direction has been passed to opposite parties to file written statement while real fact is that order dated 16.12.2013 shows that opposite parties had filed written statement on that day.

The fact of this case has been already mentioned in foregoing paragraphs. It is true that certain facts appears disputed but very close look of the Annexures clearly proves the real fact.

The complainant has booked his application with opposite party no. 2 on 16.11.2012 without any PIN CODE from very perusal of Annexure – 1. It is crystal clear that the complainant was in need and as such he has deposited Rs. 208/- to opposite party no. 2 so that his application will be delivered to addressee till 19.11.2012. It is surprising then where there was no PIN CODE mentioned on the envelope submitted by the complainant with application in it to opposite party no. 2 and when the opposite party no. 2 knew that in absence of PIN CODE no speed post can be dispatched then opposite party no. 2 has accepted the envelope of the complainant without PIN CODE. The next fact which is also surprising that as per written statement of the opposite parties it is the opposite party no. 3 who has said to have obtained consent from complainant about sending the aforesaid envelope through opposite party no. 3 without PIN CODE.

This fact has been denied by the complainant. In our opinion it was duty of opposite party no. 2 to obtain the consent of the complainant and then hand over the aforesaid application to its franchisee i.e. opposite party no. 3.

From bare perusal of Annexure – 3 it is crystal clear that aforesaid application was in Patna till 18.11.2012 thus it is crystal clear that despite obtaining the aforesaid permission the envelope containing the application of the complainant was in Patna till 18.11.2012 which appears to have been delivered on 23.11.2012 to the addressee.

This shows complete lac of sensitivity and responsibility on part of opposite party no. 2 and 3 and thus we find and hold that opposite party no. 2 has committed deficiency on his part.

We direct the opposite party no. 2 to pay Rs. 10,000/- by way of damages and compensation to the complainant.

We further direct the opposite party no. 2 to pay Rs. 5,000/- by way of litigation cost.

We further direct the opposite party no. 2 to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within the period of two months from date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party has to pay an interest @ 10% on the aforesaid amount within the period of two months.

Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                        Member                                                                   President