Ernakulam District Commission holds DTDC responsible for service deficiency and unfair trade practices

Brief facts of the case

The complainant sent a courier containing eight certificates worth Rs. 11,900 each, which were sent by DTDC courier but were mistakenly delivered to another place. DTDC did not deliver them to MBITS citing distance issues. Despite reporting the matter to the DTDC branch manager in Aluva, who confirmed delivery by his franchise, no further action was taken. The complainant alleged that the branch manager refused to provide contact details of higher officials. The complainant filed a complaint with the District Commission and sought compensation for the cost of reissuing the certificates and for the inconvenience caused, totalling Rs. 50,000.

Challenges from the opposing party

DTDC contended that the complainant had used the services for commercial purposes and hence was not considered a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. They contended that the complaint was time-barred and time-barred as per the terms of the contract. Further, DTDC contended that the consignment was delivered to the consignee’s address and received by its representative as per the standard practice of delivery of consignments for MBITS. They refuted the allegations of loss of consignment and argued that their liability was limited to Rs. 100 unless a higher value was declared and the surcharge was paid. DTDC denied any deficiency in service, negligence or cause of action and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

District Commission Observations

The District Commission observed that as per section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is broadly defined as a person who uses services for personal or educational, and not solely for commercial purposes. The Commission cited legal precedents such as Shriram Properties (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Raghachand Associates (2024 LiveLaw (SC) 368), which emphasized that, unless proven otherwise, services used by an individual for non-commercial purposes qualify him or her as a consumer within the meaning of the Act. On the issue of defect of service and negligence, the Commission noted irregularities in the delivery of the consignment by DTDC. Although the shipment had a proper address, it was mistakenly delivered to another address, indicating a failure to follow proper delivery protocols. The Commission rejected DTDC’s defense that Complainant was using the service for commercial purposes, asserting that the mailing’s intended use did not involve commercial activity. Additionally, the Commission ruled that DTDC’s limited liability clause was invalid because it lacked Complainant’s consent. Quoting Sudhir Deshpande v. Elbee Services Ltd., the Commission stressed that such clauses must be negotiated and explicitly accepted by the consumer. The commission also criticized DTDC for using fine print to obscure important terms, considering it an unfair trade practice and ordering DTDC to ensure clarity and transparency in all consumer transactions. Based on these findings, the Commission concluded that Complainant suffered significant inconvenience, distress, and financial loss as a result of DTDC’s negligence and unfair practices.

Therefore, the District Commission ordered DTDC to pay Rs. 25,000 for deficiency in service, unfair trade practices and mental agony, along with Rs. 10,000 as litigation costs.

Case Title: Anilkumar TS Menon vs Managing Director of DTDC Head Office

File number: CC No. 114/2018