Per Smt. Kanchan S. Gangadhare, Hon’ble Member
The Complainant has filed the present complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Brief facts of the case are as under :-
1) The Complainant availed service of the Opponent Agarwal Packers and Movers on 08/10/2021 for shifting his household goods from Ludhiana to Andheri Mumbai at carriers risk vide GC No.4732730. The Complainant had paid Rs.65,000/- including Rs.12,000/- for insurance of goods valued Rs.4,00,000/-.
2) At the time of dispatch of goods, the Opponent had promised to the Complainant that, the same vehicle will be used throughout the transit. However, the goods arrived in different lorry. At the time of unloading, the Complainant found that most of the goods were either fully or partially damaged. The Complainant immediately brought it to the notice of the representative of Opponent and lists the damaged goods at the back of the challan receipt.
3) The Complainant was in continuous follow up with the Ludhiana team of the Opponent for compensation of his damaged goods. The Ludhiana team of the Opponent shared claim department number. However, they never gave correct information regarding settlement of the claim. Thereafter, the Complainant started follow up with the Opponent’s head office at Sakinaka, Mumbai and after continuous follow up with Opponent’s employee Mr. Ashutosh, the Opponent conducted survey on 20/10/2021 at Complainant’s place and evaluated the loss of Rs. 1,37,000/-. However, Opponent did not settled the claim. Subsequently Mr. Ashutosh gave contact number of Mr. Ravi for settlement who sent mail on 01/11/ 2021 to the Complainant to settle the claim for Rs.2,000/- which was denied by the Complainant. Then, Mr. Ravi handover the Complainant’s case to Mr. Reddy saying that it was beyond his capacity to settle the matter. However, Mr. Reddy also failed to settle the Complainant’s claim.
4) Further, it is contention of the Complainant that Mr. Ravi informed to the Complainant that we cannot settle your claim, you contact local office in Mumbai. Since, there was no proper response regarding settlement of claim, the Complainant finally asked to the Opponent for repairing of the damaged goods and the Opponent also agreed to repair the goods. Accordingly, on 25/12/2021, the carpenter conducted a survey at Complainant’s place and never came back for repairs.
5) The Complainant was shocked with this behavior and approached the Sangharsh Nagar police station where the police informed the Complainant to file the consumer complaint at the Consumer Commission.
6) Being aggrieved by the negligent service and unfair trade practice by the Opponent, the Complainant constrained to file the present complaint and claiming full refund of Rs.65,000/- paid towards transportation of goods with interest at the rate of 10% per annum, Rs.1,37,000/- towards compensation for damaged goods, and Rs. 2,500/- towards litigation charges.
7) The Opponent was duly served with notice. In spite of several chances given to the Opponent to appear, he did not appear. Hence, ex-parte order has been passed against the Opponent so that facts remained unchallenged. The Complainant has filed pursis to consider his complaint and evidence on record as his argument.
8) In view of the above facts and considering the complaint and documents on record, following points arise for our determination and our findings thereon as are under :
FINDINGS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1. | Whether the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opponent? | Yes |
2. | Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent? | Yes |
3. | Whether Complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed? | Partly Yes |
4. | What order? | As per final order |
REASONS
9) As to Point No.1 :- The Complainant had availed service of the Opponent on 08/10/2021 for shifting his household goods from Ludhiana to Andheri Mumbai at carriers risk vide GC No.4732730. The Complainant had paid Rs.65,000/- for transportation of goods and Rs.20,000/- for transportation of car. The Complainant has filed invoice copy of Rs. 85,000/- and consigners copy at Page No. 12 and 15 of complaint compilation respectively. Hence, it is clear that Complainant is the ‘Consumer’ of the Opponent. Therefore, we answer Point No.1 in affirmative.
10) As to Point No.2 & 3 :- It is the contention of the Complainant that, at the time of dispatch of goods, the Opponent had promised to the Complainant that the same vehicle will be used throughout the transit, However, the goods arrived in different lorry. At the time of unloading the goods, the Complainant found that most of the goods were either fully or partially damaged. The Complainant immediately brought it to the notice of the representative of the Opponent and lists the damaged goods at the back of the challan receipt. In support of this contention, the Complainant has filed challan (consignment) receipt on Page No.13 and 14. We peruse the challan receipt carefully and observed the list of damaged goods on back of it with remarks ‘poor service, wrong consignment and double loading’ which shows that the Opponent has not kept his promise of using same vehicle throughout transit and while reloading, goods had been damaged. There is a signature of the Complainant below received goods with remark received in damaged condition dated 15/10/2021. In support of his contention of damaged goods, the Complainant has filed photographs of it on Page No. 18 to 25 of complaint compilation. Some photographs are with packaging around it, which reveals the fact that most of the goods were damaged in transit either fully or partially. Moreover, on challan receipt, we found the fact that the Complainant had opted ‘At carriers risk’ option. We are of the view that, in this case, it is liability of the carrier i.e. Opponent for damage caused to the goods during transit.
11) According to the Complainant, Opponents Ludhiana team did not responded well regarding compensation. Then, he had started follow up with Opponents head office at Sakinaka Mumbai and after continuous follow up with Opponent’s employee Mr. Ashutosh, the Opponent conducted survey on 20/10/2021 at Complainant’s place and evaluated the loss of Rs.1,37,000/- which was signed by the Opponents representative. Perused the survey report dated 20/10/2021 filed on Page No.11 in which list of damaged goods with their respective loss is mentioned and total loss evaluation is Rs.1,37,250/-. As the matter is proceeded ex-parte against the Opponent, the facts remained unchallenged against him. Hence, we believe the survey report.
12) According to the Complainant, the employees of the Opponent keeps on passing the issue one to another which was quiet frustrating to the Complainant which is clear from the mail trail filed by the Complainant on Page No. 20 to 32. Despite of continuous follow up with various representatives of Opponent from different offices and department, the Opponent has not compensated him for his alleged damaged goods in transit and also mentally harassed him in all possible ways. It is also clear from the mail dated 16/10/2021 that packaging of the goods was not done properly. Moreover, the employees of the Opponent Mr. Ravi offered a meager amount of Rs.2,000/- for car damage and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for damaged goods to the Complainant. In support of this contention, the Complainant has filed mail on Page No. 28.
13) On the basis of above discussion and evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the Complainant availed services of the Opponent for shifting his household goods and those goods were damaged in transit. Surveyor of the Opponent evaluated the loss of Rs.1,37,250/-. Furthermore, the Complainant had opted carriers risk option so it is liability of the Opponent to compensate the Complainant. Despite of numerous phone calls and emails to the Opponent to compensate the loss, it remains unresolved. The act of the Opponent and behavior amounts to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, we answer Point No. 2 and 3 in affirmative.
14) As to Point No.4 :- The Complainant has claimed full refund amount paid for shifting of household goods i.e. Rs. 65,000/-. It is clear from the mail trail and photographs attached on record that most of the goods were damaged in transit. Hence, we are of the opinion to grant full refund of amount of consideration i.e. Rs. 65,000/- to the Complainant. The Complainant has claimed Rs.1,37,000/- towards compensation for goods damaged. The Complainant has placed on record the survey report of the surveyor who has assessed the loss of Rs.1,37,250/- . Hence, we find it proper to grant Rs. 1,37,250/- towards compensation for goods damaged. The Complainant must have gone through the pain after seeing damaged household goods and not getting compensation for it on time. So, we are of view to grant 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- towards litigation charges. Hence, we answer Point No. 4 in partly affirmative and accordingly passed the following order.
ORDER
- Consumer Complaint No.CC/56/2022 is partly allowed.
- The Opponent is directed to refund total consideration paid for shifting of goods Rs.65,000/- (Rs.Sixty Five Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 08/10/2021 till its actual realization to the Complainant.
- The Opponent is also directed to pay compensation for damaged goods Rs. 1,37,250/- (Rs.One Lakh Thirty Seven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Only) with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 08/10/2021 till its actual realization to the Complainant.
- The Opponent is further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three Thousand only) towards litigation charges to the Complainant.
- The order under operative Clause No.2 to 4 shall be complied with within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of this order copy.
- Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.
