BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    18^th DAY OF JANUARY 2020

Complainant/s: -                           

1.  Sri.Preet Sharma

S/o Babulal Sharma

Aged about 36 years

2. Smt.Charulata Marwah

W/o Preet Sharma

Aged about 30 years

Both R/at

B2-235, SLS Splender, Devarabisanahalli,

Bellandur,

Bengaluru

By Adv.Sri.Balachandra.A.T

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

1. M/s.Agarwal Packers & Movers

(A unit of DRS Group)

Office No.101, 1^st Floor, Moreshwar Residency,

Near HP Petrol Pump,

Ganesh Nagar, Dapodi,

Pune-411012,

Maharashtra

Having its Head Office at

DRS India

Regd., Office 321,

Kabra Complex,

61-M.G.Road,

Secunderabad,

Andhra Pradesh – 500003.

2. M/s.Agarwal Packers and Movers

(A Unit of DRS Group)

Office No.296, 3^rd Floor, S.V.Tower, 11^th Cross,

Opp.to Janatha Hotel,

Above Adigas Hotel,

Wilson Garden,

Bengaluru-27.

Rep. by its Manager

 By Adv.Sri.Gajendra.S

ORDER

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The Complainant no.1 & 2 (herein after called as Complainants) have filed this complaint U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Party no.1 & 2 (herein after called as OPs) to pay Rs.96,500/- being the insurance amount along with interest;  to pay Rs.3,50,000/- towards damages; to pay cost and to award such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

The Complainants submit that, Complainant no.1 got job offer from one of the company from Bengaluru, hence they decided to shift to Bengaluru. After being assured of a quality service from the OPs, they decided to avail their service for shifting of household goods. On 18.02.17 OP packaging team arrived to the Complainants house at pune and packed the items which are in good condition in 19 boxes. The Complainants insured the same by paying Rs.25,500/-. The Complainants further submit that, after arrival of the items at Complainant’s house at Bengaluru, to the utter shock and surprise it was noticed that out of 19 boxes, 10 boxes were damaged and most of the items from these 10 boxes were broken. When the Complainants expressed their disappointment towards the negligent manner in which the household items were handled, the OP delivery team did accept their mistake and asked the Complainants to write on the backside of the delivery note and wait for 1-2 days till their assessment team visits the Complainant’s place to assess the damage and further assured the Complainants that they would be duly compensated for the damage caused. But, they did not get any response from OPs. Hence, on 26.02.17, they sent an email informing about the damage to which also they did not get any response. They called up OP customer care. Instead of helping them, they asked to follow up over email and to call another number. They tried this also, but never got any satisfactory answer. Thereafter, Complainants called OP’s Bengaluru office executive, he told that it is not OPs fault. There is a bad road in between Pune – Bengaluru hence, asked to seek damage claim with the Govt., As per the advice of consumer helpline, the Complainants sent a letter dtd.10.06.17, to which also there is no response from OPs. Due to erroneous act of negligence shown by the OPs, the Complainants were unable to cook food at home nor have a relaxing time for more than a month and till now they have not recovered from the mental trauma and harassment inflicted by the staff members of Ops which nothing but a shear deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.

3. OPs filed version denying the entire allegations made in the complaint. They submit that, the Complainants had requested the OPs for transporting the house hold items from Pune to Bengaluru. It has been explained that while transporting from one place to another place, materials will damage by small cracks and small scratches, the same has been agreed by the Complainants. Accordingly the items which were given by the Complainants and the same had packed with the same condition and transported from Pune to Bengaluru and delivered to the Complainants. The Complainants did not make any spot insurance. The items were not damaged by the OPs, while transporting the items. The Complainants had verified the items delivered to them. All the items are in good conditions and small scratches were there, hence the Complainants were demanded for the damages, the same has been refused by the OPs. The Complainants claiming the damages only to harass the OPs and gain illegally. The Complainants have accepted the items initially and after few days they started harassing the OPs for illegal gain. OPs have not received any notice from the Complainants hence the question of reply does not arise. It is the fact that, the OPs have provided the service and items delivered were in good condition. Hence on these grounds and other grounds OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint.

4. To substantiate the case, Complainant no.1 filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents. The Complainant filed written arguments. Heard. We have gone through the available materials on record.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainants prove the deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?

2. What order?

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2:- As per final order

REASONS

7. Point No.1: We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by OPs. Initially OP.2 not added as a party, subsequently added it one of the necessary party. In the instant case, OPs did not file version within the stipulated period. Hence taken as version not filed. Subsequently, OPs filed an application seeking to file version. The same is allowed on cost of Rs.5,000/-. It is evident that OPs have paid the said cost.

8. The Complainants to substantiate their case, filed affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OPs though filed version did not chosen to file affidavit evidence, hence taken as affidavit evidence of OPs not filed.  

9. The entire complaint filed by the Complainants is based on the declared value of the alleged damaged household articles. Doc.A1 is the receipt in respect of paying an amount of Rs.25,500/- for the consignment of the household articles as mentioned in Doc.A2/Packing list. The declared value of the said articles is Rs.1,50,000/-. Doc.A3 is the email correspondences in respect of the Complainants grievances towards getting compensation for the damaged articles. The claim of the Complainant is direct the OPs to pay Rs.96,500/- being the insurance amount along with interest from the date of filing this complaint till its disposal and to pay Rs.3,50,000/- towards physical and mental agony, so also cost of litigation.

10. In respect of the insurance amount of Rs.96,500/- is concerned, it appears that the Complainants have placed reliance on the Doc.A1a/Special Contract Form dtd.18.02.17 sent by Complainant no.2 to the Manager, Agarwal Packers and Movers which reads thus:

Dear Sir,

I request you to arrange the insurance coverage for my household goods which is to be transported from Pune to Bengaluru under given clause.

B.    At Carrier Risk For All Risk

Covers comprehensive and claim will be settled by carrier under you regular arrangement. The premium at 3% (inclusive of service charges). While no separate receipt/policy from Insurance Company will be given as claim. If any will be settled by carrier.

The coverage should be made for clause no….. and I am ready to make the premium at 3% for value of Rs.1,50,000/-. The list of valuation of individual article (depreciated value) is enclosed. I have gone through the detail very well and agreed the terms and conditions.

11. With reference to the said Special Contract Form/Doc.A1a, we do not find any insured amount paid by the Complainants except freight charges of Rs.25,500/-. In the absence of any material evidence on record, it is unsafe to arrive at conclusion that the Complainants are entitled for an amount of Rs.96,500/- being the insured amount and Rs.3,50,000/- towards mental agony.

12. Now, this forum has no other go except to have a guess work in respect of the physical damage caused to the listed articles no.1 to 19 as described under Doc.A2. The Complainants have made available some of the colour photographs/Doc.A5 of the 8 articles. On going through the said photos, we do not find any major damages. With regard to the other articles are concerned, there is no evidence on record. Under such circumstances, out of the declared value of Rs.1,50,000/- if an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded as compensation which appears to be just and reasonable amount payable by the OPs to the Complainants as the articles found at Doc.A5 are not substantially damaged, which appears to be repairable. With regard to the physical and mental agony, we do not find any just reasons, hence the said claim is denied. But anyhow, we fixed the litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly we answered point No.1 partly in the affirmative.

13. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the Complainants is allowed in part.

2. The OP.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Complainants along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Complainants are at liberty to have the redress as per law.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 18^th day of January 2020)

        MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants dated.20.08.18

Sri.Preet Sharma, Complainant no.1

Copies of Documents produced by the Complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs  

• Nil -    

Copies of Documents produced by OPs

            MEMBER                                           PRESIDENT