DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _452_ OF ___2015_
DATE OF FILING : 06.10.2015 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:18.12.2017
Present : President :
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad & Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Col. Mohitosh Mukherjee (Retired), s/o late Mrityunjoy Mukherjee of Pelican Nest, 3rd Floor, 456, Kalikapur Main Road, P.S Garfa, Kolkata – 99.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. M/s Gati-KWE, P-18, Taratala Road (Opp. Eveready Factory), Kolkata -88, P.S Taratala.
2. Agarwal Domestic Movers & Packers Ltd. No.54, Aishwarya Apartment, 2nd Floor, 3rfd Main, J.C Road, Bangalore- 560002.
___________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Jhunu Prasad, Lady Member
Interference of this forum has been sought for by the complainant contending gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice in rendering necessary service towards the complainant by the Opposite Parties.
In diminutive, the case of the complaint, is that, the complainant wanted to move his household goods from Bangalore to Kolkata and contacted with one executive of Agarwal Domestic Movers & packers.
On 28.04.2015 the said executive of Agarwal Domestic Movers & Packers gave a quotation for Rs.26,000/- + tax which was accepted by the complainant.
On 04. 06. 2015 a consignment of 58 packages of house hold goods was booked by the complainant through the Opposite party No.2 i.e. Agarwal Domestic Movers & Packers for shifting the same from Bangalore to Kolkata on 10.06.2015. The goods were insured for the value of Rs.90,000/-. The complainant paid an amount of Rs. 39,396/- including tax and insurance Rs.2,700/- .
But the said consignment was delivered by Opposite Party No.1 i.e. M/s. Gati-KWE on 16.06.2015 vide docket No.430334022 with many items like TV, Computer table, study table and one scooter in severally damaged conditions. The complainant endorsed regarding the damages on the docket/delivery challan of the Opposite Party No.1.
Thereafter, the complainant made several complaints to the Opposite Party No.2 regarding the damage goods, but the Opposite Party No. 2 did not take any action.
Thereafter, on 04.07.2015 and 18.07.2015 the Opposite Party No.1 intimated the complainant that their customer representative will contact with the petitioner, but no one contacted.
Thereafter, the petitioner sent a letter on 08.07,2015 and 18.08,2015 to the Opposite Parties claiming compensation of Rs 26,800/- for the cost of repairing the said damaged goods, but the Opposite Parties did not take any action for settlement.
Having no other alternative, the complainant filed this instant complaint for getting relief as prayed for.
Issued notices upon the Opposite Parties.
In spite of receiving notice the Opposite Party No.2 did not appear to controvert and to refute the complaint made by the complainant.
After receiving notice the Opposite party No.1 appeared by way of filing written version.
In the written version, the Opposite Party No. 1 stated that the instant complaint is not maintainable. The complainant did not approach this Ld. Forum with clean hands, he is guilty of concealment of material fact, so this complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini.
In written version, the Opposite Party No. 1 also stated that on 04.06.2015 the complainant has sent consignment vide docket No.430334022 from Bangalore to Kolkata, West Bengal through his third party Sri Sai Packers.
The Opposite Party is engaged in the Business of carrier & courier from place to place on pan India and transport goods on the basis of transit Risk coverage Insurance policy, which are either shipper’s Risk/Owner Risk or carrier Risk.
The complainant booked the consignment through his third party Sri Sai packers vide docket no. 430334022 dated 04.06.2015 and at the time of booking the complainant agreed to book the consignment on the shipper’s Risk/owner Risk basis. Accordingly the complainant taken the transit Risk i.e. the Shipper/owner had taken risk in transit of any loss of consignment during transit. The complainant insured the consignment by transit insurance as per guidance of the OP.No.1.
In case of shipper risk any loss occurred during transit is not covered under the Insurance of the company. If the complainant had opted for carrier’s risk, then the Opposite Party no.1 would have taken the transit insurance of the goods and for that the requisite charges would also have been charged from the complainant, which Sri Sai packers refused to pay.
The consignment damaged not in transit and the said consignment delivered to the complainant in safe and good condition.
The claim of the complainant is illegal exaggerated and out of proportion, and the application is bad in laws, misconceived harassing in nature, so the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. Save and except the Opposite party denied and disputed each and every allegation and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
Point for Decision:-
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:-
At the time of argument both parties filed e/chief, questionnaires, reply and BNA to support of their claim.
All points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of argument and brevity.
We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant and also the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 and on critical appreciation of the case record, it is evident that the complainant was contacted with the Opposite Party No.2 for shifting his house hold goods from Bangalore to Kolkata. Accordingly the O.P No.2 gave a quotation of Rs.26,000/- + tax as the petitioner was accepted the said quotation.
On 04.06.2015 the complainant booked his house hold goods through O.P no.2 for shifting from Bangalore to Kolkata.
It is also evident from the record and documents that the complainant paid total Rs.39,396/- including tax and Rs. 2,700/- for insurance to the O.P No.2 and the O.P No. 2 received the same.
Facts remain that the said house hold goods were delivered through O.P No.1 i.e. Gati - KWE, who is the carrier of O.P No.2.
Facts also remain that, at the time of delivery of the said goods to the complainant’s address at Kolkata, the complainant noticed that most of the house hold goods and one scooter (kinetic Honda) in damaged condition which has been endorsed on delivery challan of the O.P No.1 by the complainant.
Manifestly, it is found from the record and documents that the O.P No.1 stated in the written version that the complainant was agreed to book the said consignment on the Shipper’s risk/owner risk booking i.e. the Shipper/ owner had taken risk in transit of any loss of consignment during transit, but it is evident from the record and documents that the O.P No.2 charged Rs. 2,700/- for insurance of the said house hold goods for shifting from Bangalore to Kolkata in OK condition, moreover the O.P No.2 did not mention the name of the insurance company before whom the said house hold goods were insured. The O.P No.2 did not file any policy paper before the Forum. Moreover, it is found from the record and documents that the said house hold goods were damaged due to mere negligence by the O.P No.2 during the time of shifting from Bangalore to Kolkata. Opposite Parties should have more careful about the said consignment when the Opposite Parties have taken charge for shifting the same as it was pre-condition . The complainant filed money receipts of repairing the study table, computer table, sofa set, onida color TV, p c monitor and Scooter rear view mirror, here total cost amounted to Rs.16,200/-
Facts remain that in spite of several requests made by the complainant, the Opposite Parties deliberately failed to settle the matter with the complainant and also with the insurance company, if at all the goods were insured which tantamounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties .
In coming to conclusion regarding the present dispute we have carefully gone through the complaint and written version and all material documents filed by the both parties and we are of the view that the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(i)(d) of C. P. Act 1986 and entire conduct of the Opposite Parties are illegal unwarranted and arbitrary in nature and in fact by adopting such procedure the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency of service within the purview of section 2(1)(g) of C .P. Act 1986 and that’s why the Opposite Parties should be penalized.
Moreover, all the allegations made by the complainant are unchallenged, though the O.P No.2 got chance to contest and to refute by appearing before the Forum, but the O.P No 2 deliberately failed to do the same . Therefore, there are no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complaint.
Therefore, in light of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for and consequently the points for determination are decided in affirmative.
In short, the complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1 and ex-parte against Opposite Party No.2 with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
That the Opposite Parties are jointly and/ or severally directed to pay of Rs.16,200/- for damaged house hold goods and Scooter as mentioned in the complaint from the date of this order to the complainant.
That the Opposite Parties are further directed jointly and/or severally to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation due to mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/-as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order,
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the executable order by any of the Opposite Parties within the above specified period, the said amount shall carry on interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of default till its realization.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
The judgment in separate is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is :
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party No.1 and ex-parte against Opposite Party No.2 with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
That the Opposite Parties are jointly and/ or severally directed to pay of Rs.16,200/- for damaged house hold goods and Scooter as mentioned in the complaint from the date of this order to the complainant.
That the Opposite Parties are further directed jointly and/or severally to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation due to mental agony and harassment and Rs.5,000/-as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order,
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the executable order by any of the Opposite Parties within the above specified period, the said amount shall carry on interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of default till its realization.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member
