Skip to main content

Consumer forum fines courier co for losing store owner's goods

The devil is in the fineprint, they say. But, even "minutely printed" terms and conditions on a consignment bill failed to save the day for DTDC after it goofed up a dispatch. Rapping the courier company, the district consumer disputes redressal forum, Chennai (North) slapped it with a fine of 27,000. It also asked the company to refund 71, 862, the value of the goods.

Ishwar, proprietor of an optical store in the city, said he had booked a consignment with the regional office of DTDC Courier and Cargo Pvt Ltd on February 13, 2012. The shipment comprised an assorted optical metal frames and had to be delivered at another optical store in Bangalore. Despite making the requisite payment, the goods were not delivered. As DTDC did not respond to his legal notice, he moved the forum seeking compensation for deficiency in services. Ishwar said he suffered severe mental agony and loss in business. He lost his reputation and his business came to a halt.

Countering his claims, DTDC said the complaint was false and not maintainable. According to the terms and condition of the dispatch, the case could be tried only in Bangalore. Ishwar was not a consumer, as the goods were meant "only for commercial purpose".

Also, if the consignment was not insured, the company's liability for loss of goods in transit was limited to 500. The goods in fact had been lost because of "circumstances beyond its control," said DTDC.

The bench comprising its president R Mohandoss and member T Kalaiyarasi said that as Ishwar was running the business to earn his livelihood, he was a customer. The forum was competent to try the case as DTDC had its branch office in the city. It was its "prime duty "to ensure delivery when a customer entrusted his shipment to the company.

A mere statement that goods were lost because of circumstances beyond its control was not valid, said the bench.

It added Ishwar "had sustained loss of reputation, cost and business which affected his livelihood." As such there was negligence and deficiency in service on part of DTDC. It then directed the company to pay the compensation and the value of goods along with an interest of 12% from the date of booking.

 Article referred: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Consumer-forum-fines-courier-co-for-losing-store-owners-goods/articleshow/39511883.cms

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Merits and the terms of contract are irrelevant for invoking of the bank guarantees

In Sabarkantha Annuity Pvt. Ltd. Vs. NHAI and Ors, the Petitioner filed before the Delhi High Court  petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 with a prayer that, Respondents be restrained from acting upon the letter dated 15th September, 2017 or from invoking the Bid securities of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 10.93 Crores and also restraining the banks from honouring the invocation of said bank guarantees on behalf of Respondent No. 1 acting in terms of letter dated 3rd November, 2007. Petitioner has relied upon Clauses Nos. 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 4.3 of the agreement dated 28th April, 2017 entered into between the parties to say the claim for damages since is not a claim for a sum presently due and payable and the respondent would be entitled to damages only on proof of loss, per Clause 4.3 of the agreement and hence is not entitle to the entire sum of bid security.  The Court found that Clause No. 9.1.2 speaks of an exclusiv...
Post a Comment
Read more

Right of pre-emption under West Bengal Land Reform Act

In Rabindra Nath Kundu & Anr vs Sudhir Hira, Bijoy Krishna Hira being the owner in the suit plot, gifted to Santosh Kumar Hira demarcated 11 decimals of land vide deed of gift dated 27.4.2004 and the latter sold 9 decimals out of 11 decimals of land to Sudhir Hira the preemptor/opposite party no. 1 and well demarcated 1.65 decimals of land in the said plot along with several other plots were sold, transferred and conveyed to the preemptees/petitioners herein by a registered deed of sale dated 10.8.2010, the subject matter of preemption. It is argued on behalf of the preemptees that  the present opposite party no. 1/preemptor Sudhir Hira has no relationship of co-sharership with Santosh Kumar Hira opposite party no. 2 as the demarcated portion of land has been purchased. It is settled principle of law that partial preemption is not permissible and this was what the view adopted by this Hon'ble High Court is Surendra Vs. Abhimannu reported in (1980) 1 Cal LJ 135 whe...
Post a Comment
Read more

CBI has no jurisdiction to probe affairs of medical college:HC

The Madras High Court has quashed charges against administrators of a medical college and dismissed CBI's petitions opposing discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, saying the investigation agency, or any other external agency for that matter, has no jurisdiction to probe the affairs of a medical college. Quashing the charges against the administrators of a medical college and dismissing CBI's petitions opposing the discharge of officials of two other medical colleges, Justice Aruna Jagadeesan said "contravention of rules and regulations may be an offence against the statute but is not a crime. There is no room or jurisdiction for any external agency to investigate the affairs of any medical institution coming within the purview of the Medical Council of India." In identical set of orders, all delivered on August 6, Justice Jagadeesan said "the shortfall in faculties and submissions of fake/forged documents would only disentitle the institution...
Post a Comment
Read more