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

Michigan House Approves 'Right-to-Work' Bill

Amid raucous protests, the Republican-led Michigan House approved a contentious right-to-work bill on  Dec 11 limiting unions' strength in the state where the (Union for American Auto Workers)  UAW was born. The chamber passed a measure dealing with public-sector workers 58-51 as protesters shouted "shame on you" from the gallery and huge crowds of union backers massed in the state Capitol halls and on the grounds. Backers said a right-to-work law would bring more jobs to Michigan and give workers freedom. Critics said it would drive down wages and benefits. The right-to-work movement has been growing in the country since Wisconsin fought a similar battle with unions over two years ago. Michigan would become the 24th state to enact right-to-work provisions, and passage of the legislation would deal a stunning blow to the power of organized labor in the United States. Wisconsin Republicans in 2011 passed laws severely restricting the power of public s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Power to re-assess by AO and disclosure of material facts

In AVTEC Limited v. DCIT, the division of the Delhi High Court held that AO is bound to look at the litigation history of the assessee and cannot expect the assessee to inform him.  In the instant case, the Petitioner, engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of automobiles, power trains and power shift transmissions along with their components, approached the High Court challenging the re-assessment order passed against them. For the year 2006-07, the Petitioner entered into a Business Transfer Agreement with Hindustan Motors Ltd, as per which, the Petitioner took over the business from HML.  While filing income tax return for the said year, the petitioner claimed the expenses incurred in respect of professional and legal charges for the purpose of taking over of the business from HML as capital expenses and claimed depreciation. Article referred: http://www.taxscan.in/assessing-officer-bound-look-litigation-history-assessee-delhi-hc-read-order/8087/
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more