Counsel for the parties:
For the complainant: - Self.
.For the O.Ps :- Set exparte.
JUDGEMENT
1.The crux of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non receipt of house hold items which was booked from Chennai to Rayagada on Dt.26.2.2020 for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.
Upon Notice, the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their written version inspite of more than 6 months has been given to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps. Observing lapses of around 6 months for which the objectives of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant. Hence after hearing the counsel for the complainant set the case exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of natural justice as envisaged in the C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps. set exparte as the statutory period for filing of written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.
We therefore constrained to proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. Heard from the complainant. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.
Findings.
Undisputedly the complainant had booked house hold items from Chennai to Rayagaa on Dt. 21.02.2020 at Chennai through the O.Ps transport (copies of the cosignee copy and list of house hold items price fixed for a sum of Rs.61,350/- are available in the file which are marked as Annexure- I to 4). Further the complainant had also paid an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards transport charges to the O.P in shape of bank account transfer (copies of the bank statement is available in the file which is marked as Annexure – 5 to 7).
The main grievance of the complainant was that when the house hold goods not reached at destination at Rayagada in time the complainant has filed this C.C. case before this District Commission to get the house hold goods from the O.Ps . Hence this C.C. case.
The OPs despite receiving notice from this forum are failed to render service to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. as provisions laid down in Sec.2 (1)(d) of the Act.
During the course of exparte hearing the complainant put forth the required papers before this District Commission and marked as Annexures.
After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration to the evidence.
In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side of O.Ps there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth by the complainant before the forum whose evidence suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency in service but also negligence on the part of the O.Ps in not handed over the house hold articles to the complainant at Rayagada which was booked at Chennai on Dt. 21.2.2020 as per the provisions laid down under section -39 of the C.P. Act, 2019
On careful analysis of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion that inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the deficiency in service and as a result the complainant was constrained to file this complaint before the District Commission claiming the relief as sought for. In that view of the matter the O.Ps are jointly and severally liable.
We observed after booking the complainant had contacted to the O.Ps from time to time over phone but no action has been taken by the said O.Ps in ensuring to reach the house hold items in the destination. Not responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service and in that line we hold that all the parties are jointly and severally liable to deliver the house hold goods to the complainant in good condition.
. Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed.
ORDER.
In the result with these observations, findings the complaint petition is allowed in part on exparte against the O.Ps
The O.Ps. are ordered to deliver the house hold goods to the complainant in good condition as per list consignment No. 022 Dt. 26.2.2020 issued by the O.P. within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the O.Ps are ordered to pay value of Rs.61,350/- towards price of the house hold articles which was fixed by the O.Ps.
. The O.Ps are ordered to pay compensation jointly and severally a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for negligence and deficiency in service and for mental agony, harassment and further to pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.
We therefore issued a “Cease and Desist” order against the O.P. directing him to stop such a practice forthwith and not to repeat in future.
The O.Ps are ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to take further proceedings U/S- 71 & 72 of the C.P. Act, 2019. Service the copies of the order to the parties.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 4th. day of March, 2021.
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
