##PAGE1##

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THRISSUR

Present : Sri. C.T. Sabu, President Smt. Sreeja. S., Member

Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member

27^th day of March 2026 CC 571/24 filed on 03/07/2024

Complainant : Pratheeksha Subin, W/o Subin, Chanassery House, Anantha Nagar, Vellanikkara P.O., Chirakekode,

Vellanikkara Village, Thrissur – 680 028.

Opposite Parties : 1) J Anjaneyulu, Channel Partner, DTDC Express Limited, Opp. Vimpta Labs, Cherlapally, Phase II, Hyderabad – 500 051.

2) The Manager, DTDC Express Limited, Regd. Office :

No.3, Victoria Road, Bengaluru – 560 047.

(OP 1 & 2 Ex-parte)

F I N A L O R D E R

By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :

1) Complaint in brief, as averred :

The complaint is filed under Section 35(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant, the founder of an organisation called “Meraki” which is an association of artists, collected paintings of various artists across the state and exhibited them at Hyderabad in an exhibition conducted at Chithramayi Art Gallery in May 2023. After its successful conduct, the complainant on 29/05/2023 despatched the said paintings in eight boxes back to her through the 1^st opposite party which is a Channel Partner of the 2^nd opposite party courier service. The complainant claims to have paid them a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards courier charges, the consignment number, concerned, being D29701117. But, out the said eight boxes so despatched, the opposite party, delivered only seven boxes to the

1

complainant on 12/06/2023. While the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties, the complainant was informed that the said box would be delivered in two days. But it was never delivered thereafter, despite the several emails and phone calls made to them by the complainant. The complainant claims that the impugned box contained two paintings each worth Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) and also that the fault on the part of the opposite party had inflicted agony and hardship on her. The complainant alleges deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. A lawyer notice caused by the complainant statedly evoked no result. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite parties to pay her the value of the two missing paintings, apart from

other reliefs of compensation and costs.

2) NOTICE :

The Commission issued notice to both the opposite parties. But the opposite parties have not cared to file their written version or to contest the complaint before the Commission, despite their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect. Consequently, the Commission was

constrained to proceed ex-parte against both the opposite parties.

3) Evidence :

The complainant produced documental evidence that had been marked Exts. A1 to A7, apart from affidavit and notes of argument.

Proceedings against the opposite parties being ex-parte, no evidence adduced on their part.

2

4) Deliberation of facts and evidence of the case :

The Commission has very carefully examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. A1 is copy of the Consignment Challan / Receipt issued by the opposite parties in favour of the complainant bearing Bar Code 5029103995, consignee number 9961969611 and consignment No.D29701117. Ext. A1 document also bears an entry regarding opposite parties’ receipt of Rs.20,000/- as charges. Ext. A2 is copy of the delivery document in respect of bar code 5029103995, Consignee No.9961969611 and AWB Numbers D29701117001, D29701117002, D29701117004, D29701117005, D29701117006, D29701117007 and D29701117008. Ext. A3 is print out of Shipment summary in respect of Tracking No.D29701117 as of 08/06/2023. Ext. A4 is print-out of shipment tracking history. Ext.A5 series (2 in Nos.) comprise copies of lawyer notices. Ext. A6 series comprise postal receipts (2 Nos.). Ext. A7 series

comprise postal acknowledgement cards (2 Nos.).

The opposite party adduced no ev