Misplaced Courier In Transit, Karur District Commission Directs DTDC To Pay Rs. 2 Lakhs Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur (Tamil Nadu) bench comprising Thiru. N Pari (“President) and Thiru A.S. Rathinasamy (Member) held DTDC Express Courier Service liable for deficiency in services for misplacing the Complainant's courier set to be delivered in Singapore. Further, it also failed to adequately resolve the Complainant's concerns, despite several attempts at communication. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 2 Lakhs compensation and Rs. 10,000/- legal costs to the Complainant.

Brief Facts:

Mr. S. Vinothkumar (“Complainant”) who was employed at Sri Aachi Appakadai Private Limited in Singapore, faced the situation of not being able to secure a work permit for further employment after completing five years in the company. Therefore, he returned to India and wasn't able to travel back to Singapore. The Complainant had pledged his jewels for loans of Rs. 84,000/- and Rs. 74,800/- in pawn shops in Singapore. When he returned to India, he wanted to redeem the pledged jewels to avoid auction, as per Singapore government rules. Therefore, for the redemption, the Complainant sent the original jewel loan receipt through the DTDC Express Limited (“DTDC”), using a speed and safe parcel service. Despite the use of an express service, the parcel with the receipt did not reach the intended recipient in time. The Complainant, concerned about the delay, inquired with DTDC, who in reply stated that the letter reached the Porur (Chennai) branch. The delivery boy supposedly took it for delivery. Subsequently, it was informed to the Complainant that the consignment was misplaced.

Frustrated with the lack of resolution, the Complainant sent a registered letter to DTDC. However, no response was received by the Complainant from DRDC for over a month. The Complainant made several communications with DTDC but didn't receive any satisfactory response. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karur, Tamil Nadu (“District Commission”). He submitted before the District Commission that due to non-delivery of the receipt, he suffered a loss of Rs. 1,56,000/-.

In response, DTDC contended that the Complainant failed to provide essential details about the gold loan, including maturity dates, and did not produce his visa. It asserted that the Complainant, being a non-citizen of Singapore, could not legally pledge jewels in the country, as he held only a working visa. 

Observations by the Commission:

After reviewing the relevant evidence presented by both parties, the District Commission held that there were several communications by offices of DTDC regarding the delivery status but there was no document proving the receipt's successful delivery. Further, the District Commission held that DTDC didn't produce any evidence stating that the consignment was successfully delivered to the prescribed destination.

However, the District Commission noted that the Complainant was not entitled to a refund of Rs. 1,56,000/- as he failed to produce evidence of the jewels being forfeited after the due dates. However, recognizing the mental agony caused to the Complainant due to the deficiency of service by DTDC, the District Commission directed DTDC to pay compensation to the Complainant amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- with an interest rate of 9% P.A. from June 8, 2023, until the date of realization. Additionally, it was also ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

Case Title: S. Vinothkumar vs Branch Incharge, DTDC Express Courier Service Branch and others

Case No.: Consumer Complaint No. 24/2023

Advocate for the Complainant: Thiru M. Chandrasekar

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr J. Goodwin

Click Here To Read/Download Order