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

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

When debt is bona fide disputed and the defence is a substantial one, the court will not wind up the company

In SHITAL FIBERS LTD.  vs  INDIAN ACRYLICS LIMITED, as per the respondent, appellant had made a payment of Rs.61,83,218/­. However, there was an outstanding balance of Rs.8,92,723/­ as on 28.7.2008. Since despite repeated requests, balance amount was not paid, the respondent issued a statutory notice to the appellant. The same was duly responded to. As the payment was not made despite notice being duly served on the appellant, the respondent filed the aforesaid Company Petition seeking winding up of the present appellant for its inability to pay admitted debts. The learned Company Judge vide order dated 28.9.2015 admitted the Company Petition. However, while doing so, the learned Company Judge observed, that since the appellant was an on­going concern, an opportunity should be granted to it to settle the accounts with the respondent by 31.12.2015. Only in case of failure of the settlement, the citation was directed to be published. On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Cou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Abusing in-laws a ground for divorce: SC

Abusing in-laws and not allowing them to reside in the matrimonial home by a woman amounts to cruelty to her spouse, ground enough for grant of divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled while allowing an NRI's plea for legal separation from his wife. A bench of Justices Vikaramajit Sen and A M Sapre said such incidents could not be termed as "wear and tear" of family life as held by Madras High Court which had said that a couple must be prepared to face such situations in matrimonial relationship. The NRI had filed a divorce petition alleging that his wife was abusive to his family members and did not allow his parents and siblings to stay in his house when they visited the US. Referring to an incident, the husband told the court that his wife had once locked him and his sister out of the house and abused them saying they belonged to a 'prostitute family'. She refused to allow her sister-in-law to enter the house and even lodged a police complaint against her hu...
4 comments
Read more