Failure To Deliver And Concealment Of Service Deficiencies, North Delhi District Commission Directs DTDC To Pay Rs. 1.25 Lakh Compensation

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi bench comprising Diva Jyoti Jaipuriar (President) and Ashwani Kumar Mehta (Member) held DTDC liable for deficiency in services for failure to deliver the complete order by the promised delivery date. The bench directed it to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation to the Complainant and deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the State Consumer Welfare Fund. Brief Facts: Jain Cooperative Bank Pvt. Ltd. (“Complainant”) engaged DTDC Courier Pvt. Ltd. (“DTDC”) to deliver a significant number of Annual General Meeting (AGM) books to its members ahead of the AGM. DTDC assured timely delivery within seven days of receipt of the books. However, despite assurances, the books were not delivered as promised. Despite attempts to address the issue with DTDC, including visits to its office and correspondence, DTDC failed to fulfil its obligations, causing the Complainant financial loss, inconvenience, and distress. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District), Delhi and filed a consumer complaint against DTDC. DTDC argued that the Complaint was not maintainable under consumer protection laws as the service hired by the Complainant was for commercial purposes. It also disputed the claim amount, contending that the Complainant's grievances should be addressed through a civil suit rather than a consumer complaint. It claimed that a significant portion of the consignments were successfully delivered, and any undelivered books were returned to the Complainant. Observations by the District Commission: The District Commission noted that the Complainant suffered directly as a result of deficient service provided by DTDC. It held that the deficiency in service encompasses any fault, imperfection, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, or manner of performance required concerning the service provided. It held that DTDC attempted to conceal its service shortcomings by providing incorrect figures and dates regarding the receipt of AGM books and denied crucial facts without substantiating evidence. Therefore, it held DTDC liable for deficiency in services. Referring to the compensation claimed by the Complainant, the District Commission noted that the Complainant didn't furnish documentary evidence supporting its claim of Rs. 2,50,000/- as the cost of printing AGM books and Rs. 5,000/- as expenses incurred. The District Commission noted that DTDC only delivered 19,489 out of 30,456 books, leaving 10,967 articles undelivered. Consequently, it directed DTDC to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for the mental pain, agony, and harassment endured. Additionally, DTDC was instructed to pay the sum of Rs. 50,000/- as costs, which shall be deposited into the State Consumer Welfare Fund. Case Title: Jain Cooperative Bank Pvt. Ltd. vs DTDC Courier Pvt. Ltd.

Failure To Deliver And Concealment Of Service Deficiencies, North Delhi District Commission Directs DTDC To Pay Rs. 1.25 Lakh Compensation

Smita Singh

Tags