Delhi

North East

CC/324/2015

Smita Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aggarwal Packers & Movers Corporate Office - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 324/15

 

		Smt. Smita Agarwal, R/o 13-B, Road, Northern Town, Jamshedpur		Complainant
		Versus
	1.             2.	Aggarwal Packers & Movers (DRS Group) Aggarwal Floor, Wedding Mall Saraswati Vihar Opp. Crescent Public School, Pitam Pura, New Delhi 110034 Through MD Mr. A.K Aggarwal   M/s DRS Dilip Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor, 100 ft. Main Road, New Delhi 110007		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                        DATE OF ORDER:		03.09.2015 15.12.2023 28.02.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 04.12.2014 the Complainant had availed a transport services from the Opposite Party     No. 1 for transportation of her household goods from Delhi to Jamshedpur. The consignment charge was Rs. 53,202/-. Complainant stated that 60% payment was made in cash at the time of loading the goods and 40 % payment was made before unloading the goods. Complainant stated on 05.12.2014, the goods were loaded and as per the consignor copy, the value of the goods was Rs. 2,00,000/-. Complainant paid Rs. 21,280/- before delivery and GEC was signed by one Mr. Raj Kumar. The packing was started by Opposite Party No. 1 by engaging the service of Opposite Party No. 2 on 05.12.2014. Opposite Parties assured the Complainant that the goods would reach Jamshedpur within 1 week i.e. by 11.12.2014. Complainant stated that Opposite Parties packed the material without using bubble wraps and thermacol. Complainant stated that instead of 11.12.2014, the luggage arrived at Jamshedpur on 19.12.2014.  Opposite Party No. 1 after receiving the 40 % payment from the Complainant, unloaded the luggage of the Complainant at Jamshedpur. When the goods were unloaded, Complainant came to know that the goods had been damaged badly and was beyond use. On 20.12.2014, Complainant contacted the owner of the Company and he requested the Complainant to send the photographs of the damaged goods to settle the claim of damages of the goods. On 24.12.2014, Complainant sent photographs to Opposite Party No. 1. On 06.01.2015, Complainant sent a mail to Opposite Party No. 1 and Mr. A. K Aggarwal replied with a copy to Ajit and Nagasai requested them to settle the claim immediately. On 25.01.2015, a called was received by the Complainant in which Opposite Party No. 1 had decided to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the Complainant and it was the last conversation with Opposite Party No. 1. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 53,202/- which was paid to the Opposite Party No. 1 as consignment charges along with interest @ 18 % p.a. till date of actual payment. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 2,00,000/- i.e. the goods value as declared on consignor copy and Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Case of the Opposite Party No. 1

2. The Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed its written statement. It is stated that the Complainant has falsely impleaded the Opposite Party No. 1 in the present case and it has no concern with the case as alleged by the Complainant. It is stated that the Complainant has availed the transportation facilities from DRS Dilip Roadlines Pvt. Ltd and the goods were transported by them from Delhi to Jamshedpur. It is stated that the Complainant has obtained quotation from Aggarwal Packers and Movers/DRS Group Gurgaon and not from Opposite Party No. 1. It is stated that Opposite Party No. 1 is not in any manner responsible for transportation of the goods of the Complainant or any damage caused to the goods during transportation.  It is stated that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party No. 1. It is stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. The allegations of the complaint have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
3. Opposite Party No. 2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 18.12.2015.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party   No. 1 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No. 1 and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her evidence by way of affidavit, wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No. 1

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No. 1 has filed affidavit of  Shri Prabhat Gupta, Branch Manager of Opposite Party No. 1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No. 1 have been supported.

 

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Opposite Party No. 1. The case of the Complainant is that she has engaged the services of Opposite Parties for transportation of her household goods from Delhi to Jamshedpur. It is her case that during the transportation, her goods were damaged to the extent that the same could not be used. It is her case that the goods were not properly packed. It is her case that she contacted Mr. A K Aggarwal i.e. owner of Opposite Party No. 1 who told her to send photographs of damaged goods and she sent the photographs through whatsapp and g-mail on 24.12.2014.
8. The perusal of the record shows that the Complainant had not given the detail of the goods which were transported by the Opposite Parties. She had not even given the detail of the goods regarding the damage caused to the goods nor she had given the extent of the damage caused to the goods. She has simply stated that the goods were damaged and beyond use. It is her case that    Mr. A K Aggarwal the proprietor of Opposite Party No. 1 told her to send photographs and she accordingly sent photographs through whatsapp and      g-mail. She has not file the photographs which were sent through whatsapp, however, she has filed the printout of some e-mails but the same does not show the damage caused to the goods. Even certificate under section 65 (B) of the Indian Evidence Act has not been filed.
9. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant has failed to prove her case. The complaint is dismissed.  
10. Order announced on 28.02.2024.

 

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)          Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President