JUDGMENT 21.12.2010 Justice Pritam Pal, President 1. This appeal by opposite parties is directed against the order dated 11.2.2010 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh whereby complaint bearing No.1155/2009 of respondent(complainant) was allowed with costs of Rs.5000/- and appellants/OPs were directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.43,000/- on account of broken and missing items besides compensation of Rs.40,000/- for causing discomfort. These amounts were ordered to be paid within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy, failing which OPs were made liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.83,000/- from the date of complaint i.e. 13.8.2009 till realization. 2. In nutshell, the facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant who was earlier posted as Manager (Security) in RBI at Kochi was transferred to Chandigarh and had hired the services of M/s Aggarwal packers for transportation of his car as well as other household luggage from Kochi to Chandigarh. The car and the luggage were to be carried separately. One of the conditions on which the luggage was booked with OP-1 was that the luggage would not be shifted from one vehicle to another during transit and the OPs had agreed to the said term. The entire household luggage was nicely loaded in a truck having closed container on 1.5.2009 and each and every item was compactly adjusted. Thereafter, the complainant put his own lock on the door of the container as the luggage was to be transported in the same truck without there being any transshipment on the way. The complainant received the said luggage on 10.05.2009 and he was utterly surprised to see that the luggage was contained in two trucks as obviously transshipment was done on the way in most careless manner. On unpacking the household luggage, complainant and his family members found that the items of crockery, furniture, electronics etc. as mentioned in the list Annexure A were found damaged and the complainant got assessment done of these items which was to the tune of Rs.20000/-. The other household items/clothes as mentioned in the list Annexure B worth Rs.23000/- were found missing. The complainant immediately informed the OPs about the damage caused to the furniture etc and loss of items. OPs asked the complainant not to disturb the broken items till their employee visits his house to assess the loss. The articles remained scattered in the house for a long period of nearly three months but no steps were taken by OPs to make good the loss suffered by the complainant. Ultimately he was asked to approach the insurance company with whom the said household luggage was got insured by OPs. Though there was no privity of contract between complainant and the insurance company ,yet he approached the insurance company. The insurance company again asked the complainant not to disturb the broken items till the loss is assessed by the surveyor and as such the household articles remained lying scattered till the loss was assessed by the surveyor appointed by the Company. Thereafter, the insurance company asked the complainant to approach OP-1 as the compensation, if any, regarding the loss to the household luggage was to be reimbursed to OP-1 by the Company. After great persuasion, OPs offered to pay either a sum of Rs.13000/- in lump sum as compensation for the loss of items as well as damage caused to the furniture etc. or offered to pay Rs.40000/- with the condition to return back the damaged items. Both these options were not acceptable to the complainant as in the first option, meager amount was offered which would not have compensated for the loss. As per the second option, after returning the damaged articles, the complainant would have to purchase new items which were costly in the market as per the prevailing rates. Therefore, the complainant served upon OPs notice dated 23.7.2009 calling upon them to compensate the loss but to no effect. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. 3. Notice of the complaint was sent to both OPs by the District Forum seeking their version of the case. OP-1 was duly served through registered post but it failed to appear either in person or through any pleader, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte. However, OP-2 refused to accept the notice and the refusal was treated as good service. As none appeared on behalf of OP-2, so it was also proceeded against exparte. 4. The District Consumer Forum after going through the ex parte evidence and hearing the complainant allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment. This is how feeling aggrieved, opposite parties have come up in this appeal. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants/OPs as well as Sh.Alok Chaturvedi, respondent/complainant in person and gone through the file carefully. The only noticeable point of arguments raised by the learned counsel for appellants is that the alleged service on Agarwal Packers & Movers Pvt. Ltd.- OP No.1 was not proper service and that there was no employee with the name of Krishan Kumar who allegedly refused to accept the summons on behalf of OP No.2 which was only a branch office and not a head office or registered office of OPs. Thus, both OPs were not properly served and as such the ex parte order was liable to be set aside. However, these points of arguments have been repelled by the complainant . 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions put forth on behalf of the parties and find the aforesaid point of arguments put forth on behalf of the appellants to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as a perusal of the record shows that OP No.1 was duly served through registered post as there is acknowledgement due receipt duly signed by the representative of OP NO.1 about having received the summons and copy of the complaint. Despite receiving summons, none entered appearance on behalf of OP No.1 before the District Forum, so it was rightly proceeded against ex parte. The summons sent out for service of OP No.2 had been refused by its representative Krishan Kumar and the plea of OPs that there was no employee with the name of Krishan Kumar is not supported by duly sworn affidavit of any responsible functionary of the company. Thus, there was no discrepancy in affecting service on OPs and as they did not turn up despite service, so they were rightly proceeded against ex parte. Further, OP No.2 a branch office of OP company is situated in Chandigarh and the material booked was delivered at Chandigarh, so the District Forum at Chandigarh had the territorial jurisdiction to try and adjudicate upon the dispute under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. 7. The evidence adduced by the complainant before the District Forum has gone unchallenged and unrebutted as OPs did not bother to appear and contest the complaint before the District Forum. So, in the given facts and circumstances of the case the learned District Forum rightly granted a sum of Rs.43000/- on account of broken and missing items and Rs.40,000/- as compensation for harassment etc. because complainant before filing the complaint had sent various e.mails and even sent notice dated 23.7.2009 through registered post but OP company took no steps to redress the grievance of complainant. 8. In this view of our foregoing discussion, we find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum and the same is accordingly affirmed. Consequently, the appeal being without any merits is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.2200/-. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
