IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of February, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 183/2022 (Filed on 23-08-2022)
Petitioner : Sabarinath S.
S/o. Sudhakaran,
Purackal Surama House,
Mariyappally P.O.
Nattakom village,
Kottayam – 686013
(Adv. Akash K.R.)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) Agarwal Packers and Movers India
No.9, 32nd Street,
Sakthivel Nagar,
Vijay Garden,
Puzhal, Chennai – 600066
Rep. by its Manager.
(2) Agarwal Packers and Movers
(DRS Group),Corporate Office
220, 61 M.G. Road, Kabra Complex, Secunderabad,
Hyderabad, Telangana – 500003
Rep. by its Managing Director
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant entrusted 42 household articles with the opposite parties for keeping safely on 26.2.21 and to deliver to his new residence at Chennai when he would have to shift his residence at Chennai. On 26.2.22 he paid Rs.17500/- vide consignment note 10425 for the transportation and warehouse charges. The opposite party gave assurance that they would take care of the goods till shifting. Thereafter the complainant had to stay back at home due to covid pandemic. Though the opposite parties were entrusted to keep the goods for one month, they assured the complainant that they would keep the same until he returns. On 28.3.22 the complainant intimated the opposite parties that he had to shift his job to Ernakulum and the goods should be delivered to Ernakulum and the opposite parties agreed to deliver the same in the month of May. But they did not do so and when the complainant called upon the opposite parties on 10.06.22 they demanded Rs.28,000/- as transportation charges and 63,000/- towards the warehouse rent and the complainant paid the same. The opposite party delivered the goods only on 24.06.22 that too only 30 items, out of the 41th items. The balance items were either lost or damaged.
The act of the opposite party in not keeping and delivering the goods entrusted with them on payment has caused financial loss as well as mental agony to the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service against which the complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to give Rs.1,50,000/- towards the loss sustained by him due to the negligence of the opposite parties and for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-along with Rs.5,000/- as cost.
Though notice was served both opposite parties did not appear or filed version and hence set ex parte.
The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with 2 documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 and A2.
On a detailed perusal of available evidence we infer that the complainant
had paid Rs.17,500/- on 26.2.21for keeping and shifting the goods as and when required. But on demand in May, 2022 even after payment of Rs.28,000/- towards transportation charge and 63,000/- towards the warehouse charges for the whole period, the opposite parties delivered the same only on a delay of more than one month. More than that some of the valuable goods were missing and some others were damaged. The complainant had to suffer a loss of Rs.1,50,000/- in this. Here as there is no contrary evidence, it is admissible that the complainant booked for keeping and deliver his household articles with the opposite parties but they did not deliver it on time and in good condition.
In the absence of contrary evidence we find that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in their service. The complainant has produced exhibit A1 in which the opposite party has admitted the payment of 17,500/- as alleged by the complainant. Also in Exhibit A2, the bank statement produced by the complainant on 26.2.21, there is a payment of 17,500/- and it can be seen that the complainant had paid the said amount. But regarding the payment of Rs.28,000/- for the charges of delivery in June, 2022, there is no document except the A2 statement. In this statement there is a debit of Rs.28,000/- but the head of account shown is something different. Again the complainant alleges that he had paid Rs.63,000/- towards the warehouse charges. But for this payment also there is no evidence. So the complaint is allowed in part vide the following order.
1. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.17,500/- to the complainant with an interest of 9% from 26.2.2021 till realization.
2. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and suffering and Rs.3000/- towards litigation cost.
Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount. The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Failing which compensation amount shall carry an interest of 6% per annum till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of February, 23
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of bank statement
A2 – Copy of consignment note (No.10425) issued by opposite party
A2 (a) – Copy of authorization
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
nil
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
