Liability Clauses Must Be Agreed Upon By Consumer: Ernakulam District Commission Holds DTDC Liable For Deficiency In Service And Unfair Trade Practices

Brief Facts of the Case

The complainant sent a courier containing eight certificates valued at Rs. 11,900 each, which were sent through the DTDC courier but was mistakenly delivered to a different location. DTDC did not deliver it to MBITS, citing distance issues. Despite reporting the problem to the DTDC branch manager in Aluva, who confirmed delivery by their franchise, no further action was taken. The complainant argued that the branch manager refused to provide the contact details of higher officials. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission and sought compensation for the re-issue cost of the certificates and for the inconvenience caused, totaling Rs. 50,000.

Contentions of the Opposite Party

DTDC argued that the complainant had used the services for commercial purposes and, therefore, was not considered a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. They asserted the complaint was belated and time-barred according to the contract terms. Additionally, DTDC contended that the consignment had been delivered to the consignee's address and received by their representative, following the standard practice of delivering consignments for MBITS. They refuted the allegations of consignment loss and argued that their liability was limited to Rs. 100 unless a higher value had been declared and the surcharge paid. DTDC denied any deficiency in service, negligence, or grounds for action and requested the dismissal of the complaint.

Observations by the District Commission

The District Commission observed that as per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is defined broadly as individuals availing services for personal or educational purposes, not solely for commercial gain. The Commission cited legal precedents such as Shriram Properties (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Raghachand Associates (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 368), which emphasized that unless proven otherwise, services used by an individual for non-commercial purposes qualify them as a consumer under the Act. Regarding the issue of deficiency in service and negligence, the Commission noted discrepancies in the delivery of the consignment by DTDC. Despite the consignment having a proper address, it was mistakenly delivered to another address, indicating a failure to adhere to proper delivery protocols. The Commission rejected the defense of DTDC that the complainant used the service for commercial purposes, asserting that the consignment's intended use did not imply commercial activity. Furthermore, the Commission ruled that DTDC's limited liability clause was invalid because it lacked the complainant's consent. Citing Sudhir Deshpande vs. Elbee Services Ltd., the Commission emphasized that such clauses must be negotiated and agreed upon explicitly by the consumer. The commission also criticized DTDC for using fine print to obscure important terms, deeming it an unfair trade practice and ordering DTDC to ensure clarity and transparency in all consumer dealings. Based on these findings, the Commission concluded that the complainant had suffered significant inconvenience, distress, and financial losses due to DTDC's negligence and unfair practices.

Consequently, the District Commission directed DTDC to pay Rs. 25,000 for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and mental agony, along with Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

Case Title: Anilkumar TS Menon Vs. Managing Director, DTDC Corporate Office

Case Number: C.C. No. 114/2018