BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No. 7 of 2015
Date of institution: 02.01.2015
Date of Decision: 17.07.2015
Harshad Kamble son of Balasaheb Vishnu Kamble, Flat No.5325, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.
Permanent Address: Flat No.7, Vighnharta Apartment, Sutar Coloney, Behind Shivaraj Petrol Pump, Sambhajinagar, Satara 415004 (Maharashtra).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Aadhunik Pakers and Movers Pvt. Ltd. (through its Proprietor) SCO 4, 2nd Floor, Near Ranzan Plaza Gate, Ambala-Chandigarh Road, Opp. Big Bazar, District Mohali, Punjab 140603.
2. Naveen Chaudhary, Aadhunik Pakers and Movers Pvt. Ltd. (through its Proprietor) SCO 4, 2nd Floor, Near Ranzan Plaza Gate, Ambala-Chandigarh Road, Opp. Big Bazar, District Mohali, Punjab 140603.
3. M/s. Gati KWE Pvt. Ltd. (through its Office Manager), Ganesh Chouk, Opp. State Bank of India, Ganesh Chowk Old MIDC, Rahimatpur Road, MIDC Satara, Satara Maharashtra 415004.
4. M/s. Gati KWE Pvt. Ltd. (through its Director) Plot No.20, Survey No.12, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad 500084.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri Amrinder Singh, Member
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
OP Nos.1 and 2 ex-parte.
Shri Suneet Kumar, counsel for OP Nos.3 and 4.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
(a) pay him Rs.18,000/- as damages; or
(b) replace the damaged goods with new goods and/or
(c) Return the price/charges paid Rs.11,267/-
(d) to pay compensation for financial loss and injury to the tune of Rs.3,000/-
(e) to pay Rs.4,000/- as costs of litigation.
The case of the complainant is that he booked his household articles with OP No.1 on 25.07.2014 for transportation and delivery to Satara as per details mentioned in Ex.C-7. The goods were delivered at Satara by OP No.3. When the boxes of the goods were opened, irritating smell was emitting which was due to some chemical that was on the boxes and some of the goods like washing machine, guitar, water purifier, crockery and some kitchen items were also damaged/broken. The complainant requested the OPs to pay him for the damage/loss to the goods but without any result. With these allegations, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. After admission of the complaint, notice was sent to the OPs. OP Nos.3 and 4 have pleaded that one Mr. Naveen Kumar booked the material with OPs No.1 and 2 on 01.08.2014 by paying Rs.5,655/- towards freight and the material has been duly delivered by them to its ultimate consignee at Satara on 07.08.2014 in safe and apparent sound condition. Mr. Naveen Kumar has signed and acknowledged the terms of docket contract and has not paid the charges as required to cover the risks under career’s risk. There is no negligence misconduct, carelessness or deficiency in service on the part of these OPs. The material was received by Ms. Vijaya Kamble by affixing her signatures against the safe receipt of material. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of the complaint.
3. As per the report of India post, the notice sent to OP Nos.1 and 2 delivered upon them on 16.01.2015. However, none appeared for them and thus were proceeded against exparte on 10.02.2015.
4. To succeed in the complaint, the complainant proved on record affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tendered in evidence documents Ex.C-1 to C-8.
5. Evidence of OP Nos.3 and 4 consists of affidavit of Mohit Raj, their authorised representative Ex.OP-3/1; and copies of documents Ex.OP-3 /1to OP-3/3
6. We have heard the complainant in person and learned counsel for OP Nos.3 and 4 and have also gone through written arguments filed by them.
7. The complainant has availed the services of the OP No.1 and 2 who are in the business of transportation and logistics for carriage of household goods from Zirakpur to Satara Maharashtra. As per complainant he has paid a total sum of Rs.11,267/- to OP No.1 against due receipt Ex.C-3 on 25.07.2014 alongwith list of total 21 items. OP No.1 has insured the articles during transit for a total sum of Rs.33,500/-. As per the goods receipt issued by OP No.1 and 2 Ex.C-5 they have undertaken an obligation upon themselves to store the consignment at the destination under their control and deliver the same to the consignee. Further they have also undertaken that the consignment will be not detained, diverted, rebooked without the written permission of the consignee. As per the complainant the OP Nos.1 and 2 have without his consent and permission rebooked the consignment with OP Nos.3 and 4 who have delivered the booked goods to the complainant on 07.08.2014 not in safe and sound condition which he has learnt upon opening the packets after taking delivery of consignment from OP No.3 and 4. Once the goods were found in damaged condition, he informed op Nos.3 and 4 about the condition of damaged goods and sent the photographs of the damaged goods and sought compensation for the loss caused to him. None of the OPs have responded to the grievance of the complainant and, therefore, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
8. OP Nos.1 and 2 are exparte and OP Nos.3 and 4 in their reply denied the delivery of damaged goods to the complainant. Further OP Nos.3 and 4 took a stand that OP No.3 is not privity to the transaction between OP Nos.1 and 2 and have denied any deficiency in service on their part and they relied on the duly acknowledged receipt of the delivery of articles by the mother of the complainant Mrs. Vijay Kamble vide Ex.C-2.
9. The dispute is not regarding non delivery of articles. Rather dispute is regarding delivery of damaged articles by the OPs for which the complainant has sought the compensation. The point for determination is whether OP No.1 and 2 were entitled to rebook the articles and deliver the consignment through third party without the consent of the complainant. The answer in this regard is No as the complainant has paid the transportation charges alongwith insurance amount to OP No.1 and as per receipt issued by OP No.1, the OP No.1 has taken an obligation for not rebooking the consignment without the consent of the complainant. The OP No.1 has clearly violated the obligation taken upon him in this regard. As it is ample evident that without the consent of the complainant OP No.1 has rebooked the consignment for delivery to the complainant through OP No.3 and 4 as is evident from Ex.OP-3/2 the original copy of proof of delivery where the name of Shri Naveen Kumar OP No.2 appears against the column sender. The act of OP No.1 and 2 in this regard can safely be termed as an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
10. The next question is whether OP No.1 and 2 or OP No.3 and 4 are to make good the loss suffered by the complainant due to delivery of damaged goods at the destination. Since OP Nos.1 and 2 are exparte and did not file their response, the OP Nos.3 and 4’s reply to the effect that the goods have been safely delivered without any supportive evidence is of no help to the OP Nos.3 and 4. Reply of OP No.3 and 4 is also silent about the photographs of the damaged goods produced by the complainant vide Ex.C-1. The said photographs have been duly proved by the complainant by his own affidavit as well as the list of articles handed over the OP Nos.1 and 2 while booking the consignment for delivery from Zirakpur to Satara. Therefore, the receipt of damaged goods upon delivery has been duly proved.
11. Since OP No.1 and 2 have violated the terms of obligation, we deem it fit to burden the OP Nos.1 to 2 to make good the loss suffered by the complainant. The perusal of Ex.C-3 i.e. receipt issued by OP Nos.1 and 2 against the transportation charges received from the complainant, they have also received Rs.1005/- as a premium for insurance of insurable amount of Rs.33500/-. Therefore, it will be appropriate to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered to the tune of Rs.33,500/- as per the insurable amount as a transit insurance for safe delivery of goods to the destination. The complainant has thus proved the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP Nos.1 and 2. OP Nos.3 and 4 have acted on behalf of OP No.1 and 2 without the consent of the complainant and no consideration has been directly paid by the complainant to OP No.3 and 4 for availing their services. Therefore, the complainant is not consumer of OP No.3 and 4 and, therefore, complaint against OP Nos.3 and 4 is dismissed. The complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated by OP Nos.1 2 and who have violated the terms and obligation of Ex.C-5.
12. Hence the complaint is allowed against OP Nos.1 and 2 and is dismissed against OP Nos.3 and 4. OP Nos.1 and 2 are directed to:
(a) to pay to the complainant Rs.33,500/- (Rs. Thirty three thousand five hundred only) being the insured amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of booking of the goods till actual payment.
(b) to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
July 17, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Amrinder Singh)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
