BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

S.K.Talwar, R/o H.No.3180, Sector 37-C, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

Alka Packers & Movers, Plot No.330, N.H.-2, Behind Telco Service Station, Rangpuri, Mahipalpur, New Delhi 110037

                                  ..…Opposite Party

CORAM: SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       PRESIDING MEMBER

             MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA            MEMBER

Argued by:      Sh.Navjit Singh Brar, Advocate for the complainant.

       OP exparte.

PER SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              Briefly stated, the complainant hired the OP for shifting his house hold goods from his Vinayak Apartments, Flat No.703, Sector 10, Plot No.36, Dwarka to H.No.3180, Sector 37-D, Chandigarh.  Rs.11,250/- was to be paid to OP for the said job which included the charges for freight, loading, unloading, insurance of Rs.One lakh and packing.  It is averred that the driver of the lorry of OP carrying articles of complainant did not have the labour to unload it, as such he with the help of one Rickshaw puller and one passerby dragged the articles from lorry and threw them on the ground and left house of complainant charging balance amount of Rs.1200/- only against Rs.2000/-. He did not give time to the complainant to check the damage to articles.  However, when the complainant opened the boxes, he found so many articles broken, as is mentioned in Para No.6 of the complaint, thereby causing total loss amounting to Rs.57,000/-.  It is also averred that all articles were damaged due to negligence of OP while loading and unloading it.  The amount of Rs.11,250/- were paid to OP vide Ann.C-5. Alleging the above act of OP as deficiency in service, this complaint has been instituted.

2]           Notice of the complaint was served upon the OP through publication in The Tribune, dated 17.9.2010 for appearance on 6.10.2010 but inspite of that none appeared on behalf of OP on the date fixed, hence it was proceeded against exparte. 

3]           Complainant led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]           We have heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record.

5]           The contention of the complainant is that the OP shifted his household goods from Dwarka, Delhi to his house at Sector 37, Chandigarh and while doing so the OP had damaged so many articles, which found broken on opening the boxes and thereby caused him the loss to the tune of Rs.57,000/-.  He also contended that the OP carelessly unloaded the articles and though this damage/loss was brought to the notice of OP, but they did not pay any heed to make the loss good.

6]           The notice of the complaint case was duly served upon the OP through publication in the newspaper “The Tribune” dated 17.9.2010.  None has turned up on behalf of OP, hence it was proceeded exparte. 

7]           Enough opportunity was granted to the OP to contest the case of the complainant but despite the service of notice, they did not appear to put their defence or to rebut the assertions put forth by the complainant.

8]           The complainant has led sufficient documentary evidence on record to prove his case and moreover, his assertions have gone unrebutted.  Therefore, we do not have any reason to disbelieve the contentions of the complainant. 

9]           In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the complaint has merits.  The same is accordingly allowed.  The OP is directed to pay Rs.57,000/- to the complainant as compensation/damages for rendering deficient services besides paying Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation.

10]         The order shall be complied with by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to Rs.57,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 11.5.2010 till the date of actual payment to the complainant, besides paying Rs.5000/- as litigation cost.