Date of filing:- 10/12/2013
Date of Order:- 09/12/2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 52 of 2013.
Sri Tarachand Agrawal, Advocate, S/o. Late Richpal Agrawal, resident of Attabira, P.O./P.S./Tahasil- Attabira, Dist. Bargarh (Odisha)
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Sri Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Prop: M/S. Karavan Relocations, B-166, DDUTTI, 2nd Phase, Yaswantpur, Bangalore(Karnataka).
.... ..... ..... Opposite Party
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Self.
For the Opposite Party :- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Mrs Anjali Behera .... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.(w)I/c President.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.09/12/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
President by Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash, Member.
The Complaint pertains to deficiency in service enumerated under the provision of CP Act 1986 and The Complaint in brief as follows :-
There was a contract for consignment bearing No.1398 Dt.14/06/2012 between the son of the Complainant namely Sri Jitesh Kumar Agrawal and the Opposite Party i.e. Sri Ashok Kumar Agrawal, M/S Karavan Relocations, B-166, DDUTTI, 2nd phase, Yaswantpur Bangalore for transportation of the house hold goods from Bangalore to Attabira i.e. The native village of the son of the Complainant. The Complainant here in after Known as consignor and the Opposite Party is the consignee in this transit contract.
In persuance to the quotation Dt.06/06/2012 of the Opposite Party, payment of Rs.42,000/-(Rupees forty two thousand)only was made to the Opposite by the Consignor and as per the consignment Dt.14/06/2012, the Opposite Party took delivery of all house hold goods in to his possession and stored them in his godown for onward transportation of the goods from Bangalore to Attabira.
The actual case of the Complainant is that inspite of taking delivery of the goods on 14/06/2012, the Opposite Party did not sent the goods to Attabira promptly rather stored the goods in his godown for days together and after three weeks delivered the consignment goods to the Complainant/Consignor on 03/07/2012. More over some articles like suitcases containing valuable papers and certificates, toys of children were missed where as other articles like valuable clothes were wet and damaged during transit. Some electronics items were also partially damaged as per the Complaint.
Further the Complaint reveals that the consignee was present at the time of delivery of goods to the consignor at Attabira, recorded such defects in the goods and reported the matter to the Opposite Party telephonically. Despite telephonic Complaint to the Opposite Party as to loss and damages to the items of consignment as well as written objection to the drivers copy of the consignment note, the Opposite Party gave false assurance to compensate the loss and damages made to the complainant/Consignor but eventually did not acted upon as to any solution for which the Complainant/Consignor served legal notice Dt.30/07/2012 upon the Opposite Party calling for the necessary action to the financial losses accrued to him in the transaction. The advocate notice was duly received by the Opposite Party on Dt.13/08/2012 but kept silent over the matter.
Further the Complaint reveals that the Opposite Party vide its quotation Dt.06/06/2012 declared in writing that for safety of the goods, proper and specific packaging materials were to be used. But the Opposite Party neither used the safety packaging material nor delivered the goods promptly in proper time which is a service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party to the Complainant, as a result of which the Complainant had to bear both physical and mental panic, harassment and thatapart financial losses for which the Complainant seeks redressal of the forum in this Complaint. The Complainant/ consignor prays for the redressal of the forum to direct the Opposite Party.
To pay compensation for the financial losses due to loss and damages of the house hold goods during transit as well as for the physical and mental harassment to the Complainant.
To replace the scratched TV screen or to financial compensation for the same to the Complainant.
To pay compensation for inconvenience on account of inordinate delay in delivery of goods to the Complainant.
To pay cost of the proceeding to the Complainant.
To pay any other relief to the complainant which deemed fit for by the forum.
The Complainant relied on the following documents in support of his contention.
Quotation Dt.06/06/2012 (Xerox copy, 1 sheet).
Consignment note No.1398/Dt.14/06/12 (Carbon copy, 1 sheet).
Written request by the consignor bearing LR No.1398 Dt.14/06/12 addressed to the OP (1 sheet).
Legal notice dt.30/07/2012 along with postal receipt and A.D. Card. (3 sheet).
Money receipt Dt.20/03/2015 of Priya media solutions along with coy of the paper publication dt.20/03/2015 in “Samyukta Karnataka”
Letter dt 14/06/2012 of the Opposite Party to the consignor. (1 sheet Original)
Packaging list dt.14/06/2012 of the Opposite Party (2 sheets, carbon copy).
Self assessment list as to loss or damages of the items of the Complainant. (Xerox copy, 1 sheet).
A part from documents shown above, The Complainant has also filed one affidavit dt.04/08/2015 sworn before Notary public, Bargarh and also one written arguments dt.05/08/2015 before the forum.
Notices were sent to the Opposite Party several time but all returned back being unserved. Ultimately notice was served on the Opposite Party by the mode of paper publication. Despite being served notices through paper publication Dt.20/03/2015, the Opposite Party neither appeared nor filed his defense before the Forum, as a result the Opposite Party vide Forum's order has been set-exparte and the Complaint is heard ex-parte.
Heard argument of the Complainant, Perused the Complaint and documents annexed to the case record as well as the written argument of the Complainant during final hearing of the case and the Forum found three points to be decided in this Complaint.
Whether any inordinate delay is caused by the OP in delivering the articles to the Complainant.
Whether any loss or damages made to the goods entrusted to the Opposite Party for the transportation of the same from Bangalore to Attabira.
Whether the Opposite Party is liable for deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant.
The consignment is made on transit on Dt.14/06/2012 at Bangalore and the delivery is made on Dt. 03/07/2012 to the consignor at Attabira, after nearly about 19(nineteen) days of the date of consignment. Neither the quotation dt.06/06/2012 nor the consignment Dt.14/06/2012 or any documents filed by the Complainant reveals as to actual numbers of days for transportation of the articles by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. The signature of the consignor on the lorry receipt/consignment letter also does not bear the date of receiving the goods by the consignor. Hence the delay in delivery of goods to the Complainant is not established by the Complainant comprehensively.
Although in his complaint petition para 4(four) has asserted to produce the damaged article on being asked by the Forum but never filed any petition before the Forum for personal inspection of the damaged articles. The onus of proof lies with the Complainant. However the Complainant has filed one affidavit sworn before the oath authority as to the loss or damages accrued to him for the deficiency in service caused by the Opposite Party, which is a good piece of evidence which is not challenged by the Opposite Party in its contrary. Also the non appearance of the Opposite Party before the Forum for its defense is also strengthen the complaint. Hence a reliance can be paced on the pleading of the Complainant and the Forum feels there is some loss or damages made to the goods entrusted by the Complainant to the Opposite Party for transportation from Bangalore to Attabira.
The Opposite Party is liable for deficiency in service caused to the Complainant by not maintaining the official records neat and clean with more information regarding dates, articles, conditions of the goods while delivering to full proof the transit and has failed to rebut the allegation made against him by the Complainant.
Delving deep into the matter, the affidavit filed by the Complainant and the consignment/lorry receipt Clause-12 of the terms and conditions (which reveals the risks value of the transporting company) and argument placed by the Complainant, the Forum Order as follows:-
O R D E R
The Forum directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only to the Complainant towards compensation for all accounts within forty five days of the date of Order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% (nine percent) per annum till the actual payment.
Complaint allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
M e m b e r.
( Smt. Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r. I/c President
