Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/995/2016

Priyanka Ahuja - Complainant(s)

Versus

Agarwal Packers & Movers - Opp.Party(s)

Amandeep Singh Nirmaan Adv.

07 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No	:	995 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	02.12.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	07.04.2017

 

 

 

 

Priyanka Ahuja d/o Late Justice V.K.Ahuja, R/o Kothi No.2, Aera Homes, Kasumpti Koti, Shimla 171009

 

              …………..Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1]   Agarwal Packers & Movers, Plot No.181/18, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh (U.T.) through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

 

2]   Agarwal Packers & Movers, Kabra Complex, #220, 61-M.G.Road, Secunderabad 500003, Hyderabad, through its Chairman & Managing Director.

 

…………… Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH.RAJAN DEWAN          PRESIDENT

                                MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA           MEMBER

SH.RAVINDER SINGH            MEMBER

           

Argued by  Sh.Amandeep Singh, counsel for complainant.

Sh.Mohinder Singh, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

RAVINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

         The facts in issue are that the complainant hired the services of OPs for shifting her household items from Panchkula to Shimla.  The Opposite Parties gave estimate of Rs.43,050/- (Ann.C-1) and final offer was made to the tune of Rs.41,000/-, which was accepted by the complainant.  It is averred that the OPs were told to shift the household items on or before 31.8.2015 and were asked to start packing by 28.8.2015, but still the OPs started the packing on 30.8.2015 and the items were packed and loaded on 31.8.2015 @ 7 PM.  It is also averred that the OPs mishandled the items and they packed & loaded things in a hurry and haphazardous manner.  Ultimately, the payment has been made as per the bill Ann.C-2 to the OPs, but the complainant was surprised to notice that the OPs also charged her for unpacking services, though did nothing. It is submitted that the Opposite Parties neither unpacked the items at Shimla nor they refunded the charges of unpacking items, despite informing it (Ann.C-3).

         It is also submitted that the OPs though charged Rs.13,500/- for the insurance thereby covering any damage to the articles, but did not issued & supplied proper insurance cover note to the complainant and instead gave a self-printed slip (Ann.C-5).  It is further submitted that the OPs never got any insurance done and they misappropriated that money themselves. 

         It is stated that at the arrival of goods at Shimla, the complainant observed major damage to the furniture and other household items and prepared a list thereof and got appended signature of company employees on the list of documents of damaged goods (Ann.C-7), apart from taking photographs.  The complainant brought this matter to the notice of the Opposite Parties, followed by e-mails served as a notice, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. 

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that packing was carried out in careful manner and all the packing material, as ordered by the complainant, was used.  It is denied that the OPs have contracted to deliver the items on or before 31.8.2015 and the company always suggests the consumer probable dates of packing the house hold goods and the delivery of the same.  It is stated that company has taken the authority to unpack the items at the delivery point because the company always used its packing material and after unpacking the goods, the packing material is taken away. It is also stated that the company has its own terms & conditions under which the company issues the transit coverage of the goods during transportation. It is submitted that whatever items are found in damaged condition, the same will be repaired by the company, as per its terms and conditions. It is also submitted that the company always gives the compensation on the price which are indicated on the packing list which is prepared in consultation with the complainant. It is further submitted that the Opposite Parties delivered the items at the premises of the complainant with utmost due care and same has been acknowledged by the complainant.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]       The complainant also filed rejoinder reiterating contentions as raised in the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the facts and pleadings along with entire evidence on record.

 

6]       The Opposite Parties in their reply in Para No.5 (On Merits) have stated that the company always used its packing material and after unpacking the goods, the packing material is taken away.  Meaning thereby, the OPs unpack the household goods after reaching its destination just to get back the packing material for reuse in subsequent other consignment. Explicitly the charges of Rs.4500/- on account of unloading charges are superficial and unjustified.

 

7]       The OPs admittedly have charged Rs.13,500/- for insurance of the goods.  As per the facts brought out in the complaint, supported by evidence i.e. photographs of damaged household articles (Ann.C-6 colly.), the following household items were extensively damaged:-

 

Article Damages	Price indicated	Price Assessed
Glass Table	Rs.4500/-	Rs.3000/-
Glass Painting	Rs.1000/-	Rs.500/-
Chest drawer	Rs.12,000/-	...
Shoes	Rs.3500/-	..
Plastic Chair	Rs.750/-	..
Bed	Rs.12,000/-	..
Two Wooden Chairs	Rs.8000/-	..
Sofa	Rs.75,000/-	Rs.50,000/-
	Rs.1,16,750/-	Rs.53,500/-

 

8]       The declared value of the above damaged articles, as per the complaint comes out to be Rs.Rs.53,500/-.

 

9]       However, as per the list prepared by the OPs, through their representative before loading all household articles, the price of Sofa has been assessed to be of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.75,000/-, as alleged in the complaint, and price of Glass Table is assessed to be of Rs.3000/- against the amount of Rs.4500/- as claimed in the complaint and the price of Glass Painting is assessed to be of Rs.500/- instead of Rs.1000/- as claimed by the complainant in her complaint.  The price of other items, as mentioned in the above table, have not been able to be identified on individual item basis from the list prepared by the OPs.

 

10]      The OPs have in their reply admitted that whatsoever items are found in damaged condition, the same will be repaired by the company as per its terms and condition and the company always gives the compensation on the price which are indicated on the packing list which is prepared in consultation with the complainant.

 

11]      The work of OPs in booking and delivering of household goods of the complainant from Panchkula to Shimla, was not proper and the valuable goods have been damaged causing severe financial loss to the complainant, which proves gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

12]      Keeping in view the above facts & circumstances, the complaint is allowed with directions to OPs to indemnify the complainant and pay her a total sum of Rs.58,000/- (i.e. Rs.53,500/- towards damage of Glass Table, Glass Painting and Sofa and Rs.4500/- charged as unloading charges illegally), within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 

         If the order is not complied within the above stipulated period, the OPs shall also pay an additional cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

07^th April, 2017                                                                                                                            Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER