Present         (1)    Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                               President

                    (2)     Sri Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh,

                              Member

Date of Order : 22.05.2015

                    Sheo Shankar Prasad Singh

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite parties:-

1. To sanction of claim of all the five damage articles as per their declared value i.e. : Rs. 19,000/-
2. To pay Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) as Compensation for mental and harassment due to delay by the opposite parties.
3. To pay Rs. 11,000/- (Eleven thousand) as litigation cost.

Total : Rs. 80,000/- ( Eighty Thousand only)

2. Brief facts of the case which to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant is a senior officer in the central Govt. of India working in the Life Insurance Corporation of India and was transferred from Mumbai to Patna in September 2010.
2. The complainant therefore approached the opposite parties for the transportation of his households articles from Mumbai to Patna as they are called a big name in the services of transportation.
3. The complainant booked his household articles for transportation with the opposite party no. 2 on 05.09.2011 opposite no. 2 charged a total amount of Rs. 53,150/- from the complainant for the said purpose.
4. The opposite party no. 2 charged Rs. 6,150/- under the head of premium @ 3% of the declared value of the articles and in total complainant paid the whole amount of Rs. 53,150/- to the opposite party no. 2 in Mumbai itself as full and final payment.
5. It is further submitted here that the opposite party no. 2 assured the complainant that the complainant would get his consignment in Patna within eight days and his consignment would be in the same condition as it was in Mumbai during the packing.
6. The complainant received his consignment in Patna on 23.09.2011 but in a useless condition. Out of his 85 packets the complainant found his 5 valuable articles completely ruined due to the mishandling and carelessness of the opposite party no. 2 which includes an Almirah, a Showcase, one mattress, one gas/Oven and Glass of dressing table.
7. Total declared value of the aforesaid five articles is                         Rs. 20,000/- approximately which is evident from Annexure – 1/1 of this petition.
8. The complainant visited the office of opposite party no. 1 on 23.09.2011 itself with the grievance and they gave an assurance to the complainant that they would sanction the complainant’s claim and do the needful very soon.
9. The representatives of the opposite party no. 1 did visit the complainant on 23.09.2011 and after going through the damage articles, they prepared a survey report. It is stated that this act of opposite party no. 1 was just an eye wash because since then none of the opposite parties have responded.
10. The complainant, since 23.09.2011 made several attempts for the settlement of his claim through letters dated 12.10.2011, 19.10.2011, 11.11.2011 and 16.11.2011 respectively sent through E-mail.
11. The complainant made countless personal visits to the office of opposite party no. 1 but to add to the misery of the complainant, he had to come across the rude behavior of the opposite party no. 1. The complainant also made several telephonic conversations with opposite party no. 1, 2 and 3 but they never paid any heed.
12. The complainant also sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 28.11.2011 through an Advocate asking them to sanction his claim but even then the opposite parties have not responded till date.
13. The complainant has dreamt of good service by the opposite parties but on the contrary they have made the complainant suffer by adding to his mental and physical agony accompanied by monetary loss. The opposite parties did not even consider that Gas/ Oven and mattress are the basic amenities needed in every household.
14. The careless, irresponsible and rigid attitude of the opposite parties is within the purview of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

Perused the documents placed on record and heard the complainant only.

Despite notice being served the opposite parties neither appeared nor filed any written statements or participated in the hearing to deny the allegations of the complainant. Thus we are left with no alternative then to accept the version of the complainant made in the complaint petition duly supported by an affidavit from which it appears that it comes within the purview of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

Accordingly we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 19,000/- ( Rupee Nineteen Thousand only ), being the amount of damaged articles to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the instant complaint petition i.e. from 17.01.2012 and till it is finally paid.

The aforesaid opposite parties are further directed to Pay Rs. 5,000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand only ) as composite charges for compensation and litigation costs.

Thus the instant complaint petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                              Member                                           President