BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.
Complaint No: 715 of 10.12.2015. Date of Decision: 18.11.2016.
Subhash Verma son of Prem Chand, resident of House No.390-F, S.B.S. Nagar, Ludhiana.
..… Complainant
Versus
- Aggarwal Home Move, having its office at SCO No.118, Rajni Vihar, Near Heerapura Power House, Heerapura 200 Feet By Pass, Ajmer Road, Jaipur 302021 through its Manager
- Shri C.M. Choudhry, Executive Field Officer, Aggarwal Home Move, SCO No.13, Ist Floor, Ranjan Plaza, Behind Lottery Bazar, Ambala, Chandigarh Road, Zirakpur-140603
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
MS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. R.S. Mand, Advocate.
For OPs : Exparte.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred as Act) filed by complainant by pleading that he contacted OP1 for transport services because same is carrying on work of loading/ unloading, transportation and packaging of house hold articles from door to door. Safe delivery of the goods was proclaimed to be provided by Ops for specified destinations. Ops proclaimed that goods will reach on destination in time and safely without damage. Ops proclaimed that they are duly licensed and registered with Government of India for carrying on the said business. House hold articles consisting of one window AC, one AC stabilizer, one TV was agreed to be transported from House No.390-F, S.B.S. Nagar, Ludhiana to Mr. Deeraj Kumar, B-5, Giriraj Nikunji, Shri Thakur Ji Ashram Wali Gali, Ramanreti Road, Vrindavan, District Mathura (U.P.). Bill no.211 dated 07.06.2015 was issued by accepting amount of Rs.8375/- as uploading charges. Complainant handed over goods to OPs on assurance that they would be delivered safely without damage at the specified destination. Thereafter OPs delivered these goods at Vrindavan, but TV of complainant was fully damaged and there was problem in AC. Complainant asked Ops regarding these defects, but Ops continued to linger on the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter complainant was shocked to hear that Ops not responsible for any damage and breakage. Despite repeated requests, OP did not head to the request of complainant. Complainant suffered mental agony and harassment on account of loss caused to him and as such, damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- sought. Legal notice dated 04.07.2015 even was served upon OPs for calling upon them to pay sum of Rs.8,375/- + Rs.15,000/- i.e. TV value on account of suffered loss by the complainant.
2. OP1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 03.02.2016, whereas OP2 was proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 04.10.2016 because none appeared for OP2 despite substituted service through paper publication.
3. Complainant in exparte evidence, tendered his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 and then closed evidence.
4. Written arguments not submitted. Oral arguments heard and record gone through carefully.
5. Invoice Ex. C1 proves that three items were to be carried by OP1 from House No.390-F, S.B.S. Nagar, Ludhiana for transportation after acceptance of Rs.8375/- as uploading charges. Transportation charges of Rs.5400/- and insurance charges of Rs.1750/-, but service tax of Rs.1030/- were received. In view of the cover of insurance provided by OP1 to the goods to be transported, it was the responsibility of OP1 to take the goods to destination place free from defects. As Rs.1750/- were accepted as insurance charges and as such, submission advanced by counsel for complainant has force that responsibility was of OP1 to take the goods to station of destination free from defects. Consignment note Ex. C2 establishes that the goods consisting of one window AC, one AC stabilizer and one TV was booked by complainant for destination of B-5, Giriraj Nikunji, Shri Thakur Ji Ashram Wali Gali, Ramanreti Road, Vrindavan, District Mathura (U.P.). Though noting on Ex. C2 is recorded that carrier is not responsible for breakage and leakage, but in view of acceptance of the insurance charges @5% (as reflected by Ex. C1), it was the responsibility of OP1 to ensure that the goods reaches safely. Terms of contract are binding and as such, in view of the note appended on Ex. C2 to the affect that carrier is not responsible for breakage and leakage, it has to be held that if at all damage or breakage caused to the consigned goods, then OP1 not to be held liable, but in view of the acceptance of insurance amount, it was responsibility of OP1 to disclose the name of insurer to complainant, so that complainant may claim reimbursement from the insurance company concerned. Name of the insurer not shown to be disclosed to complainant and as such, OP1, transport company cannot escape from the liability for the loss/damage to TV of complainant. Worth of the TV claimed as Rs.15,000/- and damage alleged to be full to TV and as such, complainant is entitled to this amount of Rs.15,000/- from OP1 as per submission of counsel for complainant. OP2 acted just as an agent of OP1 and no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation leveled against OP2 and as such, in view of the fact that liability of principal to remain, it is held that only OP1 will be responsible for the reimbursement of Rs.15,000/-, the price of the TV. If there is any problem in AC, then same should have been disclosed specifically, but same is not disclosed and as such, in view of the vague allegation qua problem in AC, it cannot be held that actually any problem suffered in AC during transportation from station of consignment to station of destination. Vague and general allegations regarding problem in AC not acceptable as correct allegation and as such, complainant not entitled to any amount for problem in AC, particularly when report of expert with respect to the problem of AC even not proved and nor any expert examined to prove that he has inspected AC and found any specified problem. However, as the salvage of the TV is with complainant or with the person, who took the charge there of at the station of destination and as such from the total worth of Rs.15,000/- of the TV, deduction of salvage material has to be made. As report regarding total damage of the TV even not submitted and nor any expert examined to prove this total loss and as such, it is appropriate to allow half of the price of TV only. So OP1 held liable to pay Rs.7,500/- to complainant on account of damage to TV. Besides complainant suffered mental harassment and agony and as such, he is entitled to compensation of amount of Rs.5,000/-, but litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-, particularly when none has come to contest the complaint. OP2 being an agent did everything in the matter of booking or transportation as an agent of OP1, but in the course of agency business and as such, liability of principal i.e. OP1 to remain only.
6. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP1 will pay Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only) to complainant on account of loss to TV. Even OP1 will pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to complainant on account of mental harassment and agony, but Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) as litigation expenses. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Complaint against OP2 dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Vinod Bala) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:18.11.2016.
Gobind Ram.
