DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  25^th  day of  October, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 11/10/2021  

                         CC/169/2021

Noushad S,

S/o. Sharafudeen (Late),

Dhohamalayil,  R.S.Road, Ottapalam,

Palakkad,  Kerala.                                                      -                       Complainant

                             (By Adv. T.M. Abdhul Rasheed)
  

                                                                                                Vs

1. Proprietor,

DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

Opp. K.V.K.Textiles, R.S.Road, Ottapalam,

Palakkad, Kerala – 679 101.

2. Proprietor,

DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

Near Post Office, Nilambur,

Malappuram – 679 329.

3. Proprietor,

DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

Kerala Corporate Office, Xavier Arackal Road,

Kacheripadi, Ernakulam – 652 018.

4. Proprietor,

DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,

Corporate Office at DTDC House, No.3,

Thyagi M. Palanivelu Road, Victoria Lay out,

Bangalore,  Karnataka – 560 047.                                  -                    Opposite parties 

(OPs  by Adv. Supreetha S.)                             

O R D E R

            By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. O.P.s are courier service. 4^th O.P. is the Corporate office of operations in India. 3^rd O.P. is the Head Office managing operations in Kerala. 1^st O.P. is the franchisee of the 4^th O.P. where consignment was booked and the 2^nd O.P. is the branch office at the delivering end.
2. Complainant alleges that he consigned a Galaxy Note mobile phone worth Rs.47,000/- with the first opposite party, for delivery at Malappuram. Booking was done at first OP’s office. Delivery ought to have been carried out by the 2^nd OP’s office. But the 2^nd OP failed to deliver the consignment causing loss to the complainant. The Complainant filed this complaint aggrieved by the non-delivery on the consignment by the 2^nd O.P. and  has raised a  claim for Rs.2,32,000/- under various heads.
3. First O.P. entered appearance. Other OPs, though they received notice, did not contest the matter. 1^st O.P. stated that post-booking by the complainant, the document was delivered to the office of the courier at Nilambur, i.e. the 2^nd OP. It was from there that the consignment was lost. 
4.  Pleadings and counter pleadings considered, the following issues were framed by this Commission:

1. Whether the complainant had  succeeded in proving that the parcel / consignment contained a mobile handset ?
2. Whether the parcel had reached the consignee as claimed by them?
3. Whether as per the terms and conditions of the OP concerned, the consignee has to declare the value for consignment?
4. If yes, whether the complainant had follow this?
5.   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s?
6. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
7. Reliefs, if any?

5. (i)     Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A4.  

    (ii)               Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B1.

    (iii)    Complainant and OP1 were examined as PW1 & DW1 respectively.                     

Issue Nos. 1, 3 & 4                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

6.         Complainant’s case is that he had booked for consigning an N770 Galaxy Note 10 worth Rs.47,000/- with the 1^st OP. The 1^st OP (the only one who contested the complaint) opposed the complaint claims and stated that the O.P.s  had no knowledge the contents of the consignment.  In order to substantiate their case the complainant had marked Exts. A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is a retail invoice showing purchase of a mobile phone issued to one Sameer E. Ext.A2 is the original of a booking receipt issued from the office of 1^st OP. The contents therein do not show the description of the consignment. Ext.A3 is an e- mail communication between the opposite parties.  Ext.A4 is also a communication between the opposite parties. Both these communications do not reveal the nature of the consignment.  Even though complainant and OP1 were examined, nothing revealing or reliable could be brought out to prove the nature of the consignment.

7.         Thus we have to hold that the complainant has failed to prove the nature of the consignment.

8.         Consequently any discussion on Issues 3 and 4 will not serve any purpose as the complainant had failed to prove the nature of consignment.

            Issue No.2

9.         O.P.1 filed version stating that subsequent to booking of the consignment, it was delivered to the 2^nd OP and the consignment was received at O.P.2 destination branch on 20/7/2021 itself.  Ext.B1 track record pertaining to the consignment in dispute  shows that the consignment was successfully delivered to ‘the self’ on 20/7/2021.  Thereafter there is nothing in Ext.B1 showing further processes.

10.       Therefore, we hold that the consignment has reached the destination agency, i.e. OP2, but the 2^nd O.P. has failed to deliver the consignment to the consignee.

                        Issue No.5

11.       Following the findings in issue No.2, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.s 2, 3 & 4.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.1.

            Issue No.6

12.       Complainant having failed to prove the nature of the consignment and therefore the entire relief sought for based on the premises that the consignment was a mobile phone, we refrain from ordering the O.P.s to pay the cost of the mobile phone. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that the compensation sought for is also on the higher side. Therefore we hold that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as sought for.

            Issue No.7

13.       We order the complaint as herein below:       

1)         The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.35,000/- for deficiency in service, payable by the  2^nd O.P.

2)         The complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs.25,000/-, payable by the 2^nd O.P.

3)         The 2^nd OP shall   comply with the aforesaid directions  within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the opposite parties shall pay a solatium of Rs. 500/- per month or part  thereof from the date of this order till date of payment of the entire amounts as stated above.  

4)         In the event the 2^nd O.P. fails to effect this payment, the complainant will be at liberty to move against O.P.s 3 & 4 seeking execution of  the same reliefs.      

Pronounced in open court on this the  25^th  day of October,  2023.

                                                                                                            Vinay Menon V

                                                                President

               Vidya.A

                                Member        

                              Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                     Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :

Ext.A1 – Copy of retail invoice bearing No.I/NIL/951 dated 3/6/2020

Ext.A2 –  Original courier receipt bearing no.R42217589  

Ext.A3 -  Copy of email communication dated 27/7/2021

Ext.A4 -  Copy of email communication dated 28/7/2021

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:    

Ext.B1 – Print out of tracking record bearing No.R42217589

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:  

PW1 – Noushad (complainant)

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:

DW1 – Rameshkumar KB (OP1)

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.