DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 778/2014

Date of Institution: 26.08.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 17.11.2023

Judgment Passed on: 17.11.2023

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in service while transporting his goods at two place i.e. from Calcutta to Delhi and from Calcutta to Firozpur, Punjab.
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that the complainant had to transport his household materials from Calcutta to two places i.e one from Calcutta to New Delhi and other from Calcutta to Firozpur Punjab. Accordingly he approached the OP and met one Mr. Saha and subsequently met Mr. Jitender of OP who assured that they would transport the household materials without any damage after packing the same, themselves and ultimately it was agreed that the OP would pack and remove articles from Calcutta address to Delhi and to Firozpur respectively, in the intervening night of 31.05.2013 & 01.06.2013 freight to be fixed as and on these assurances of OP’s representative, the complainant booked his ticket from Calcutta to New Delhi for 02.06.2023 so that he may receive the articles himself at Delhi and it was specifically informed that the goods had to picked-up at the scheduled time and date but nobody was deputed by the OP to collect the household goods/articles and complainant had to call the representative of the OP time & again and ultimately in the late hours on 01.06.2013 the OP sent two persons who when reached were in drunken condition and even were not addressing the complainant properly rather were abusing him and as such when matter was reported to another representative Mr. Sinha, he apologized and simultaneously told him that OP had deputed another person who would collect the articles and ultimately the complainant who had booked his ticket from Calcutta to Delhi after the assurance that the goods were to be picked up on 02.06.2013, in the absence of complainant, although in the presence of his representative, and accordingly the goods were taken from the house of complainant Vide Receipt No. 4275477 to Firozpur Punjab and another Receipt No. 4275476 dated 02.06.2013 to New Delhi and the complainant had paid Rs.2500/- in advance & then Rs.35,431/-. However, when the goods reached at respective destinations it was observed that some of the articles i.e. Bed Parts & Crockery were found damaged and One Carton with miscellaneous articles i.e. Morning Walker, Exercise Machine, Mixer Grinder, Casio Keyboard Player, Clothes & other small household items were found missing which were scheduled to be delivered at Delhi costing worth Rs.80,000/- collectively and two articles which were scheduled to be delivered to Firozpur Punjab, i.e. Washing Machine, Wooden Door & Closet costing worth Rs. 58,000/- were found damaged. One Hitachi A/C 1.5 Ton was found missing & the total loss was of Rs. 1,43,000/- to the complainant which was either broken or missing and when these facts were brought to the knowledge of the OP and complainant requested the OP for returning Rs. 1,43,000/- but OP did not give any satisfactory reply despite sending emails & letters and ultimately he served a Legal Notice dated 13.09.2013 upon the OP thereby demanding of Rs.2,18,000/- from the OP i.e. Rs. 1,48,000/- towards cost of the lost/damaged articles & Rs.75,000/- towards compensation which was not complied with and ultimately he has filed the present complaint with the prayer that OP be directed to pay Rs.2,18,000/- to the complainant alongwith litigation cost of Rs. 5,50,000/-.       
3. The OP has filed its reply taking preliminary objection that there is no packing list provided by the complainant at the time of booking and the list which is now being placed has been prepared after taking of the household goods and even the price of the articles was not mentioned initially. It is further stated that there is no person with name of Mr. Saha nor he is/was an employee of the OP company but the delivery/booking of the consignment is not disputed. However it is stated that complainant had received all the goods as per his consignment without any complaint on the spot however the complainant is now demanding money with malafide intention which amounts to abuse of the process of law. The complainant has concocted false and fabricated story w.r.t. the lost/damage articles. It is further stated that as per the policy of the OP if goods gets damaged during the transportation due to highway/roads condition then as per the policy, fix percentage of compensation is payable to the complainant and therefore the present complaint in the present form is not maintainable and the OP has written terms & conditions of the contract on the carrier receipt which is signed by the complainant which includes as to how the damages would be governed in case of lost/damage material & which reads as under;-

(a) That as per the Clause of the Special Contract Form and Request For Risk Coverage under C.R. if the consignoriconsignee merely puts his signature on the GR showing acknowledgement of goods without giving any remark about the status of the materials, would be deemed that the transported materials were delivered in ok/good condition, so, in the present case, the complainant got signed the acknowledgement receipt without any remark

(b) That consignor after issuing o.k. receipt made any complaint subsequently or at a later stage, the same shall not be entertained.

(c) That a claim for compensation for damages of material of any nature would be entertained either for repair or for cash payment by the form of compensation, however, the same would be treated by writing a separate complaint seeking compensation.

(d) That in case of the daim arising due to the breakage of any breakable item like glass, plastic etc., the payment of compensation will be restricted to the declared value of such items as mentioned in the packing list.

(e) That if single piece has been broken out of a set, the payment will be made proportionately of the value of such set declared at the time of packing.

(f) That in case of any damage of furniture or any wooden item, the damage would be got repaired only by the carpenter and no claim for replacement of the damaged furniture/wooden item will be entertained if the damage is repairable.

(g) That the carrier will not be responsible for payment of any

compensation in respect of an electronics item if not shown in working condition at the time of packing and the carrier would be liable for its repair to make the same in working condition or the cost of the damaged parts would be paid proportionately after computing the value of damaged part after taking into account the declared value of such item, so, in the present case none of the electronics items were shown to the opposite party by the complainant in good working condition at the time of packing the same.

(h) That although due care will be taken to ensure quick transportation and timely delivery of the materials at the destination but due to certain unforeseen circumstances or due to certain natural calamities or due to certain sudden road hazardous taking place in transit causing delay in delivery of the materials, in such circumstances, no claim for any compensation will be entertained.

4. As far as the merit is concerned the contents of the preliminary objections are reiterated and it is prayed the complaint of the complainant be dismissed. The complainant has not filed any rejoinder although has filed his own evidence and OP has filed evidence of one Sh. H.P. Singh, its AR. The complainant as well as OP both have filed their written arguments and Commission has perused the records.
5. This Commission has heard the arguments of both sides and perused the record. The fact that complainant booked household articles through OP and the goods reached at both the destinations is not disputed. The issue of dispute is that the complainant submits that initially the employee of the OP did not collect the articles at the given time and when two official of OP came they were in drunken condition and despite waiting they neither packed the articles nor loaded the same and good could be packed only on next day despite the fact that it was conveyed to the OP that he would be leaving for New Delhi on the 02.06.2013 and above all when the articles reached the destination, some of the articles were damaged and some articles were lost.
6. The contention of OP on the other hand is that goods were delivered to complainant after taking his signature and complainant had not raised any objection at the time of taking delivery of the articles and he raised the objection subsequently and once the complainant has taken the articles without any objection then the factual position w.r.t. the status of articles cannot be appreciated and therefore what happened after taking delivery of the articles is an afterthought therefore complaint of the complainant be dismissed.
7. In the entire complaint it is nowhere specifically stated by the complainant as to when the complainant lodged first complaint w.r.t. the lost/damage articles. The first letter which is written by the complainant to Sh. HP Singh is dated 17.06.2013 w.r.t. the conduct of the staff. In reply thereto a letter has been written via email from Ms. Riya (Employee of the OP) to the complainant thereby feeling regretful for the inconvenience cuased to him and also told that they are tracking the bed parts which would be delivered soon. Thereafter another few emails are on the record and in the email dated 21.06.2013 OP has given offer of Rs.3000/- subject to acceptance of the complainant but as per the complainant the same was not acceptable to him.
8. The complainant has asked for the cost of the articles which are damaged and which are lost. There is no authentic evidence on record to appreciate as to when these goods were purchased, how old these goods were, and whether the goods were in the repairable condition or not. There is no written document on record to prove the cost of such damaged/lost articles. Therefore the contention of the complainant that he be given the actual cost of the damaged/lost articles cannot be appreciated but simultaneously it is also matter of record that the goods were entrusted to the OP which he duly transported to the respective destinations and the goods even reached the destination but some articles were misplaced and some articles were damaged and once the OP has offered some sort of settlement, it stands proved that there was some negligence on the part of OP. Neither the complainant nor the OP has been able to prove the value of the lost/damaged articles and that part of prayer of the complaint is too vague to be considered but certain damage has been admitted by the OP.
9. Therefore the Commission is of the view that complainant is not in position to prove the actual loss & therefore cannot be granted the value of the articles as claimed, however there was bounden duty on the part of OP to carry the entrusted articles to the destination safely and that has not been done by the OP & therefore deficiency on the part of OP stands established.
10. Since the OP has admitted that some of the articles were missing and OP is trying to search out the same, that established that OP despite having taken the freight charges has not to transported the articles safely and as such and there is deficiency in service on the part of OP.
11. The Commission therefore directs that OP to pay compensation Rs.30,000/- including litigation charges without any interest initially.
12. The amount would be paid by OP within 30 days of having received the copy of the judgment & if it is not paid within 30 days from the date of Order then interest would be payable by the OP to the complainant @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment on entire amount.
3. opy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 17.11.2023.