DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 8th day of August, 2018
Present:-
1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 66 of 2017
Santosh Kumar Das
S/o: Late Purusottam Das
Po: Randiahat
Ps: Bhadrak (R)
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Office-in-charge, D.T.D.C Express Ltd.
Office at Naya Bazar, Bhadrak
2. The Office-in-charge, D.T.D.C Express Ltd.
Shop No. 1, Ground Floor, Balajee Arcade, White Field Area,
White Field, Bengaluru- 560066
3. Managing Director, D.T.D.C Express Ltd.
Regd. Office at No. 3, Victoria Road, Bengaluru- 560047
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Advocate For the Complainant: In person
Advocate For the OP No. 1: Sri H. Mohanty
Advocate For the OP No. 2: Ex-parte
Advocate For the OP No. 3: Sri S. C. Patra
Date of hearing: 06.03.2018
Date of order: 08.08.2018
SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the complaint alleging against the O.Ps for deficiency of service. The O.Ps are the service providers owned by courier service. The complainant has availed the service from the O.Ps. On 01.08.2017 the complainant had sent some valuable documents through OP No. 1 office at Bhadrak vide Receipt No. K-01814393 dt. 01.08.2017 by paying Rs 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) towards delivery charges. The money receipt dt. 01.08.2017 filed as Annexure-1. The service provider OP assured the complainant to deliver the said document as soon as possible to its receipt namely “Shuvankar Das, Flat No. 302, Rivera Palace, Narayanappa Garden, White Field, Bengaluru- 560066”. But the above named consignee has not received the said document till date. For the same he contacted the complainant several times towards the reasons of non-receipt. Then the complainant queried about the non delivery of his document to the OP and lodged an oral complain before OP No. 1 at Bhadark. And the consignee lodged an on-line complaint to OP No. 2 at Bengaluru. The OP No. 1 did not take proper steps for delivery of the said courier document against the receipt No. K-01814393 dt. 01.08.2017. So, the complainant sent one written complaint to the O.Ps on 19.08.2017 and those have been received by the O.Ps but no steps have been taken by them till date. The copies of written complain along with its postal receipts have been filed as Annexure- 2, 3 & 4.
Hence the complainant has sought for the reliefs as follows:-
1. That, the OP may be directed to produce the original envelope which was consigned vide money receipt No. K-01814393 dt. 01.08.2017.
2. That, the complainant may be awarded Rs 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards cost of mental harassment and injury.
The documents filed on behalf of the complainant (Xerox copies):-
1. Legal notice issued on dt. 19.08.2017- 1 sheet.
2. Copy of the registered receipt two pages.
3. Retail invoice & warranty card- 1 sheet.
4. Tracking of D.T.D.C (details)- 4 sheets.
OP No. 1 appeared through his concerned advocate in the D.C.D.R.F on dt. 19.01.2018 and filed his written version as follows:-
The written version filed by the OP No. 1 is found illegible and abscind manner. The facts of the written version has been filed in a haphazard manner which is neither readable nor indefinite to be understood. It is also found that the written version is written by the concerned advocate of the OP No. 1. It is settled principle of law is that “Any pleadings drafted by the English must be typed. But in this case the written version of the OP No. 1 has been written by hand. It has also been found that the written version of the OP No. 1 not annexed with the affidavit of the OP No. 1. Another demerit of the said written version that the said OP No. 1 has not put his signature of the written version filed by him. But without the signature of the party the written version is not admissible. The OP No. 1 has filed two numbers of documents such as Xerox copy of tracking report & address sheet.
The OP No. 3 has filed his written version in printing manner as follows that the petition is not maintainable and having no cause of action. He has also averred that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and he has to prove the averments made in the Para- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10. The OP No. 3 has delivered the consignment at its destination and one Hari has received the consignment on 03.08.2017. The copy of the receipt with the delivery status report has been annexed in Annexure- A & B. OP No. 3 has also averred that the statements made in Para- 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 are false fabricated and baseless. He further averred that the complainant has filed this case to harass and defend the OP No. 3. Hence proceeding is liable to dismissed.
He has filed some documents (Xerox copies) as follows:-
1. Internet interface- 3 sheets.
The OP No. 2 has neither appeared in this Forum nor he has filed any documents. Hence he has become set ex-parte.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the facts of the complaint and the documents also. It is a fact that on 01.08.2017 the complainant had sent some valuable documents through OP No. 1 office at Bhadrak vide Receipt No. K-01814393 dt. 01.08.2017 by paying Rs 100/- (Rupees one hundred only) towards delivery charges. The money receipt dt. 01.08.2017 filed as Annexure-1. The service provider OP assured the complainant to deliver the said document as soon as possible to its receipt namely “Shuvankar Das, Flat No. 302, Rivera Palace, Narayanappa Garden, White Field, Bengaluru- 560066”. But the above named consignee has not received the said document till date. For the same he contacted the complainant several times towards the reasons of non-receipt. Then the complainant queried about the non delivery of his document to the OP and lodged an oral complain before OP No. 1 at Bhadrak. And the consignee lodged an on-line complaint to OP No. 2 at Bengaluru. Both the O.Ps have not hesitated before the Court that they have not caused any deficiency of service against the complainant. Both of the O.Ps have not incorporated their innocence in their respective written version. The complainant has clearly explained the deficiency of service and negligent caused towards the complainant. It is primary duty of all the O.Ps to enquire about the valuable documents of the complainant. The complainant is a consumer under the CP Act. He has prayed for the courier charges. It is further contended that the OP No. 1 after several requests made to him by the complainant to deliver the said parcel bag containing the documents the OP No. 1 became heedless towards him. So the cause of action of this case arose on 20.08.2017 when the complainant submitted a written complaint before the OP No. 1 but the letter denied to take any step in this regard to tress out the consigned documents and to deliver the same to the consignee at Bengaluru. After above discussion we have decided that the OP No. 1, 2 & 3 are liable and responsible for losing the said documents. So it is obvious that the OP No. 1 has neglected to perform their duty and they have caused deficiency of service towards the complainant. Hence it is ordered that;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed against the OP No. 1 contesting against OP No. 1 & 3 and ex-parte against OP No. 2. The OP No. 1, 2 & 3 are directed to produce the original envelopment before the complainant which was consigned money receipt No. K-01814393 on dt. 01.08.2017. The OP No. 1, 2 & 3 are hereby also directed to pay Rs 10,000/- in case of non traceable of the said envelop or said documents to the complainant. He is further directed that to pay Rs 3,000/- compensation towards mental agony and harassment and Rs 1,000/- towards cost of the litigation. The No. 1 shall carry out this order within 30 days on receipt of the same.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 8th August, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
