Ananda Mohan Dey,

67/5, College Road, Shibpur, District -Howrah, PIN – 711 103.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Yoga Yog Centre,

12, B.G. Road, Howrah – 711103.  

2.         DTDC Currier & Cargo Limited,

            404, 405, Kazi Nazrul Islam Sarani,

            Raghunathpur, Kolkata,

            PIN – 700 059.

3.         DTDC Currier & Cargo Limited,

            Regd. Office DTDC House – 3,

            Voictoria Road, Bangalore,

            PIN – 560047..-----------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Ananda Mohan Dey. by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act,

1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to pay an amount of Rs. 3,10,000/- for causing severe mental agony to him due to non delivery of the dispatched documents of his son.

2.                  Brief facts of the case is that complainant sent some important documents like

motor vehicle transfer documents of his son by way of availing the service of O.Ps. by way of paying the required charges for the same vide Annexure I being consignment no. K 58221264 on 28-09-2012.  The said documents were issued by Jamshedpur Motor Vehicle Department towards the transfer of the vehicle from Jamshedpur to Mumbai vide Annexure II. But the agent of O.Ps. lost the said consignment in transit which was informed to local police by way of lodging one general diary with the Shibpur Police Station vide Annexure III. Immediately after receipt of the xerox copy of said Annexure III from O.P. no. 1, complainant sent e.mails to one Shri Arnab  Dutta of O.P. nos. 2 & 3 to get relief. But O.Ps. remained silent over the issue till the filing of this case. Moreover, one mediator namely, Akosha Team tried to settle the issue between the complainant  and O.Ps. for which they received Rs. 499/- as service charge vide Annexures V & VI. But they gave a reply to the complainant stating therein that O.Ps. did not have any such documents of the complainant for due dispatch to his son. And complainant is required to collect all those documents once again from Jashedpur Motor Vehicles Department. It is further alleged by the complainant that as his son did not receive all those documents, he cannot ply his own vehicle on road and for his day to day transportation, he has been spending lot of money which is causing severe mental, physical as well as financial loss to him as well as to his son. O.Ps. are remaining totally silent in respect of collecting duplicate documents from Jamshedpur Motor Vehicles Department. So, finding no other alternative and being highly aggrieved, complainant has filed this instant petition alleging deficiency in service against O.Ps. with the aforesaid prayer.

3.                  Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly,

case heard on contest.

4.                  Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.                  Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.            O.P. no. 1 in its

written version vide paras 6,7, 8 has admitted that one consignment being no. CN No. K58221264 dated 27-09-2012 was booked by the complainant which was lost by one of its carrying agent, namely, Suvankar Roy and it was informed to police vide  G.D.E. no. 2861 dated 28-09-2012. It is also a specific plea of O.P. no. 1 that one declaration in triplicate was required to be furnished by the complainant giving the details of any important documents sent at the time of booking the consignment which he did not comply. And also it is a fact that complainant took back all charges which he paid for sending the consignment, without raising any objection or claiming any compensation. Moreover, he interacted only with O.P. no. 2 and never came back to O.P. no. 1 for any kind of redressal. And only through e-mail dated 09-10-2012 sent to O.P. no. 2  (vide para 13 of the written version), complainant asked them to make arrangement for collecting all duplicate documents but no monetary compensation was claimed in that e-mail. Here we take a pose. Complainant was only demanding the documents to be collected by O.Ps. from Jamshedpur Motor Vehicles Department before filing this case. This case was filed on 28-03-2013. So, it is crystal clear that complainant waited for long six months to get back his documents. O.P. no. 1’s this plea that complainant did not file any declaration is not at all tenable because they accepted the consignment from the complainant without that declaration after receiving the service charge on 27-09-2012. O.Ps. could have collected the duplicate copies of the documents from Jamshedpur Motor Vehicles Department easily by way of showing the copy of police diary dated 28-09-2013. But they did not take any initiative towards that end. Mere returning of service charges of Rs. 60/- to the complainant cannot protect the O.Ps. against their negligence in providing service towards the complainant. O.Ps. no. 2 & 3 in their written version have categorically stated that complainant is not their consumer and O.P. no. 1 received the consignment and it is also a fact that the agent of O.P. no. 1 only lost the document of the complainant. But we are to keep in mind that O.P. no. 1 is the approved agent of O.P. nos. 2 & 3 vide Annexure dated 25-07-2003 attached with the written version of O.P. no. 1, which is an authorization letter given by O.P. nos. 2 & 3 in favour of Shri Arunama Haldar, the proprietor of O.P. no.1. So, for all acts of O.P. no. 1, O.P. nos. 2 & 3 are vicariously liable. In true sense, motor vehicle transfer documents are very important for the vehicle in question without which that vehicle cannot be plied on road. So, it is well understood that complainant’s son has to incur a huge amount towards transportation cost. O.Ps. should have kept in mind that they are running a business which is totally based on consumer satisfaction. But they have totally neglected to discharge their duties towards the complainant. They have taken the entire matter very  lightly, which should not be allowed to be perpetuated.  Accordingly, we hold O.Ps. to be deficient in providing service towards the complainant.    

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 97  of 2013 ( HDF 97 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  the O.Ps. 

      That the  O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to collect the duplicate original documents issued by Jamshedpur Motor Vehicles Department towards the transfer of the vehicle being Bajaj Pulsar in favour of  Shri Kaustav Dey  within 30 days from the date of this order alternatively O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs. 90,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.

      Complainant do get an award of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs. The O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to pay this amount of Rs. 60,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from this order i.d., it shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till actual realization.   

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.