BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

            Dated this the 31^st day of May 2018

                                                                                                Filed on : 09.03.2017

PRESENT:

Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose,                                                 President.

Shri. Sheen Jose,                                                                 Member.

Smt. Beena Kumari V.K.                                                      Member.

                        C.C.No.110/2017

                                   Between

                                               O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member

1.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant is a retired person and a Senior Citizen.  He decided to shift his household articles from Chandigarh to Kochi to live with his son, who is working as a doctor in Amrita Hospital. The complainant approached the opposite party in order to move his household articles and other antiques from Chandigarh to Kochi.  For that purpose he booked the consignment transfer to the opposite party on 25-08-2016 under the quotation No. 4331825 for an amount fixed Rs. 90,000/- which is including 3% of insurance of the delivered goods.  The opposite party promised that the household items of the complainant may be delivered to the house of the complainant at Kochi is on 21-09-2016.  For that purpose the complainant and the opposite party entered to an agreement for the delivery of house hold items of Chandigarh to Kochi.  On 27-09-2016 the house hold items of the complainant were delivered belatedly.  The expected delivery promised by the opposite party was on 21-09-2016, but the delivery of the house hold items reached to the complainant only on 27-09-2016.  Moreover the opposite party received an additional amount of Rs. 6,000/- for unloading the household items to the complainant’s house, which is against the agreement for the delivery of the goods.  After unloading the household items some of the valuable goods, utensils and items belonging to the complainant were broken into pieces and were in non-useable condition and also non-repairable forever.  The complainant was very much worried and his heart was broken and also his mental pain and agony augmented. The complainant immediately approached the opposite party and informed about the incident. He demanded to replace the unused household items or to compensate for it. One Mr. Vijayakumar, deputed by the opposite party visited the complainant’s house and took the photographs of the damaged household goods and also inspected the damaged household goods of the complainant. Mr. Vijayakumar evaluated the household damaged items.  Thereafter no action was taken by the opposite party for curing the damage of the household items. The opposite party received an amount of
Rs. 96,000/- from the complainant for the movement of goods from Chandigarh to Kochi.  But the opposite party failed to comply the terms and conditions of service after receiving charge from the complainant.  The above said act of the opposite parties amounted to serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice also.  The complaint alleged that the opposite party did not take any action either to replace the damaged items or to refund its price.  The opposite party did not pay any attention to the genuine grievances of the complainant stating one or another reasons.  Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant for the negligence, and deficient service rendered by them.  He also sought for the costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

2)      The 1^st opposite party had filed a version on 21-7-2017 and the same was rejected due to the reason that it was filed after the statutory period.   Thereafter on 25-10-17 the opposite party filed an I.A. 544/2017 for accepting the version.  The same was allowed on payment of costs of
Rs. 5,000/- out of which Rs. 2,500/- was directed to be paid to the complainant and an amount of Rs. 2,500/- to be deposited to the Legal Aid Fund, CDRF, Ernakulam.  The 1^st opposite party did not comply with the above order of this Forum in I.A. 544/2017.  Hence we did not consider the version of the 1^st opposite party in this case.  

3)      The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and he was examined as PW1.  Exbt.A1 to A13 were marked on his side. No oral evidence was adduced by both parties.  Exbts. B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

Heard the learned Counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties.

4)      Issues came up for considerations are as follows:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the side of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation and costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

5)      Issue No. (i)

The complainant and the opposite party entered into an agreement for transporting and delivering of the household items and antiques belonging to the complainant from Chandigarh to Kochi.  As per the agreement, he had entrusted the household items and antiques to the opposite party for transportation from Chandigarh to Kochi. For that purpose, he had signed the consignment transport documents to the opposite party on 25.08.2016 under the quotation No.4331825 for an amount of Rs.90,000/-. As per the consignment letter Exbt.A4 and Exbt.A12 series it is clearly mentioned at the top left corner that the jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising out of subject is vested with “Secundarabad jurisdiction only”.  Further on the reverse side of the above consignment letter as per clause 12 it is clearly stated that “all disputes arising between the Transport Company and consigner/consignee will be dealt with by competent Court of Secundarabad jurisdiction only”. The above condition was made known to the complainant and he had signed the said document accordingly as evidenced by the documents produced by the complainant himself.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to read into or to delete from, the conditions agreed between the parties as pronounced by the Apex Court. Therefore, we are not in a position to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant before this Forum for the reasons stated above. The 1^st issue regarding the maintainability of the complaint is decided against the complainant.

Issue No. (ii) and (iii)

Having found the issue No. (i) against the complainant, we are not inclined to consider and decide issue Nos. (ii) and (iii).

This complaint is found liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, this complaint stands dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of May 2018.

Sd/-Sheen Jose, Member

Sd/-Cherian K. Kuriakose, President

Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K. , Member

                                                                     Forwarded by Order

                                                                     Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

Opposite party’s Exhibits     ::   

Depositions  :

          PW1  :         Jayant Kolar Venkitaraman       

Date of Despatch   :

By Hand      :

By Post       :                                    

………………………