BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.638 of 2014
Date of institution: 03.11.2014
Date of Decision: 27.04.2015
Diwakar Sharma, resident of HL-12, Phase-7, Mohali, Punjab 160062.
……..Complainant
Versus
Agrawal Express Relocation Services Pvt. Ltd., Flat No.01, Diamond Villa Building, Sector Number 16, Opp. Indica Dispatch Gate, Chinchwad, Pune 411019, Maharashtra.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.
Present: Complainant in person with counsel Sh.Anil Sharma.
Shri Arun Kumar, counsel for the OP.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant Diwakar Sharma has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:
(a) refund him Rs.43,500/- with interest @ 10% per annum from 14.10.2014 till actual payment.
(b) pay him Rs.50,000/- towards punitive compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and hardship.
(c) pay him costs of the complaint.
The complainant’s case is that he availed the services of the OP on 26.05.2014 for transportation of his household items from Pune (Maharashtra) to Mohali by paying Rs.50,000/- as insurance charges of the goods. However, the items were delivered to the complainant not only in broken condition but also less than the dispatched items. Thus, as per the complainant there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. The OP in the written statement has pleaded in the preliminary objections that this Forum does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and complicated questions are involved in the present complaint. On merits, it is pleaded that the household items were delivered to the complainant at Mohali in a safe and sound condition. The items were got insured under Transit Insurance from Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd. covering any damage due to accident, rain and fire incident. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP has sought dismissal of complaint.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-27.
4. Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Inderjit Yadav, its Director Ex.OP-1/1 and copy of insurance policy Ex.OP-1.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the written arguments of the complainant.
6. Admittedly, the goods were booked at Pune for delivery at Mohali. Admittedly the complainant has made the payment of transportation charges vide Ex.C-1 & C-2. The said charges include insurance premium for value Rs.50,000/- @ 3% which clearly goes to show that the insurance was got done by the OP at the instance of the complainant. Further the complete packing list Ex.C-4 shows the articles booked for delivery from Pune to Mohali. The total number of packages as shown in the list are 22. Upon receipt of goods at Mohali the complainant found certain items not delivered and the delivered items were found broken or not in a working condition. The complainant has immediately informed the OP vide Ex.C-5 e-mail dated 26.06.2014 about the short delivery/defective/broken articles delivered to the complainant. Hence the complainant requested the OP to take up the matter for process of his claim for insurance. As per the complainant the goods which were required to be delivered to the complainant without any damage and loss and in the same state and condition in which they were booked for transportation at Pune, were delivered not only short but some of the items were also damaged and since the complainant has paid the premium for insurance, therefore, he is entitled to insurance claim as per the terms of policy purchased by the OP on his behalf. Rather than getting the claim settled with the insurance company by the OP, the OP took no heed to address his grievance and directed him to take up the matter directly with the insurance company without giving him the insurance policy/cover note of the insurance thus leaving the complainant in total dark at the mercy of the insurance company. When the complainant followed up with the insurance company, the insurance company gave a categoric reply vide E-mail dated 29.01.2015 that the policy has already lapsed on 10th January, 2014. However, the stand of the insurance company is entirely contradictory regarding the validity of the insurance as perusal of Ex.C-9 i.e. Marine Cargo Open Policy shows that the policy stands cancelled w.e.f. 10.06.2014 due to wrong certificate issuance. Such a statement of the insurance company per se shows unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on its part. The OP has since purchased the transit insurance policy on behalf of the complainant and took the premium amount for the policy from the complainant; the onus was on the OP to get the claim settled with the insurance company on behalf of the complainant. In this case the OP has miserably failed to discharge is obligation. Again it was open to the OP to implead the insurance company as necessary and proper party if it wanted to shift its onus to the insurance company. In the present complaint no such steps were taken by the OP. Therefore, for causing damage to the booked articles/short delivery of the booked articles as per list duly proved by the complainant Ex.C-6 and the valuation of the loss suffered due to missing/damaged items articles Ex.C-12 remained unrebutted in the hands of the OP. The complainant has been successful in proving the loss suffered on the basis of photographs and exchange of e-mails between the parties Ex.C-5 to C-27 and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence by the OP, we hold the act of the OP is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.
7. In view of above discussion, the complaint is hereby allowed with the following direction to the OP to:
(a) to pay to the complainant Rs.43,500/- (Rs. Forty three thousand five hundred only) towards the loss of damaged/missing articles with interest thereon @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 26.05.2014 till actual payment.
(2) to pay to the complainant a lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
April 27, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(A.B. Aggarwal)
Member
