State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Officer-In-Charge, Dtdc Express ... vs Santosh Kumar Das on 13 September, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ODISHA, CUTTACK First Appeal No. A/425/2018 ( Date of Filing : 07 Sep 2018 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/08/2018 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/66/2017 of District Bhadrak) 1. The Officer-in-charge, DTDC Express Ltd. Office at- Naya Bazar, Bhadrak. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Santosh Kumar Das S/o- Late Purusottam Das, Po- Randihat, PS- Bhadrak. 2. The Officer-in-charge,DTDC Express Ltd., Shop No.1, Ground Floor, Balajee Arcade, White Field Area , White Field, Bengaluru-560067. 3. Managing Director, DTDC Express Ltd., Registered office at No.3, Victoria Road, Bengaluru-560047. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty. MEMBER HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik MEMBER PRESENT: M/s. P.K. Mohapatra & Assoc., Advocate for the Appellant 1 M/s. U.N. Sahoo & Assoc., Advocate for the Respondent 1 Dated : 13 Sep 2022 Final Order / Judgement
Heard learned counsel for both sides.
2. Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant on 1.8.2017 has sent some consignments through OP No.1 to one Shuvankar Das, Flat No. 302, Rivra Palace,Narayanappa Gardn, Whit Field,Bengaluru - 560066 but that consignee has not received said consignments. So the complaint was filed. OPs filed written version stating that they have already delivered the consignments on 3.8.2017 in the given address to one 'Hari'. They have denied the entire allegations made against them.
4. Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following order:-
"xxx xxx xxx 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 for 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.1000/- towards cost of the litigation. The No.1 shall carryout this order within 30 days on receipt of the same."
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum without appreciating their written version have passed the impugned order. Learned counsel further submitted that the property has been delivered in the given address and one 'Hari' has received the property. Learned District Forum has not considered all these facts for which the impugned order should be set aside by allowing the appeal. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the online complaint has been filed by the addressee also but the same has been considered by the learned District Forum. Since consigned goods are not delivered, rightly learned District Forum passed the impugned order.
6. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.
7. It is admitted fact that the complainant has sent the consigned goods to the consignee through OP No.1 on 1.8.2017. It is not in dispute that the address of the consignee is Shuvankar Das, Flat No. 302, Rivra Palace,Narayanappa Gardn, Whit Field,Bengaluru - 560066.The only question arises whether the consignment was delivered at his address or not. The complainant only stated that the consignee has not received the consignment. It is stetted in law that the complainant has to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Complainant has not proved any document of the consignee to show that he has not received the document in question. Moreover, Shuvankar Das has not been examined to find out whether he has received the property or not. So the complainant has not proved non-receipt of property of the addressee. On the other hand, the property has been delivered by the OPs to one 'Hari' in the given address.
8. In view of above discussion, we are of the view that learned District Forum has not considered the case with proper appreciation of facts and law. Therefore, the entire impugned order is illegal and improper and it should be set aside and is hereby set aside.
9. The appeal stands allowed. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Pramode Kumar Prusty.] MEMBER [HON'BLE MS. Sudihralaxmi Pattnaik] MEMBER