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

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
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