Date of Filing:03/02/2018

Date of Order:21/04/2018

BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated: 21^st DAY OF APRIL 2018

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. (Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge) And PRESIDENT

SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.180/2018

V/s

ORDER

BY SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT

1.  This is the complaint filed by the complainants against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as O.P) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Forum to order the O.P to pay them a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards the breakages of glassware, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of fan, cloths and utensils, Rs.6,000/- collected towards insurance, Rs.20,000/- towards not keeping  the promise of unpacking and making them to engage others for unpacking, Rs.3,00,000/- for causing mental harassment of senior citizen and other reliefs as this Forum deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

2.   The brief facts of the complaint is that, the complainants are husband and wife. They are aged 76 years and 72 years respectively. They were residing in Mumbai.  The 1^st Complainant retired from service on 31.8.2017. They approached the O.P by seeing their web site advertisement and contacted the O.P for shifting their luggages to Bengaluru on 22.9.2017. One Sri Sathish Singh representative of O.p visited the house and estimated that the cost of transportation would be Rs.23,000/-.  It was agreed for the said amount.  On 20.10.2017, the said Sathish Singh along with some other persons came to their house at 10 a.m and started packing and loading the materials and then demanded a total sum of Rs.46,686/- on the ground that  there was miscalculation on their part while assessing the number of bags and the materials required for packing. They also obtained Rs.6,000/- towards insurance. Apart from paying the said amount, on humanitarian ground they also paid Rs.1,800/-  for lunch and bakshish. 

3.    It is further stated that, O.P promised to deliver the goods and unpack the same at the destination within four days i.e. A-704 Regal Prelude, 127 Seegehalli, Virgonagara, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bengaluru 560 049.   Whereas, on 27.10.2017 at 9 p.m they delivered the goods. There was delay in delivering the same which has caused much inconvenience for them and they had to spend money for their food and other requirements. At  the time of delivery of the goods, though they have undertaken and collected money for unpacking, they did not do so. Number of attempts made to a contact O.P and Sathish Singh and writing of letter through email did not materialize and the calls made were not answered.   There is deficiency in service in not delivering the goods booked for transportation in time as agreed, there is deficiency in service in not unpacking the same at the time of delivery though money was collected for the same, there is deficiency in service for the damage caused to the articles booked for transportation and there is deficiency in service in collecting Rs.6,000/- towards insurance and no documents handed over to them having paid the premium and further collecting GST without informing them the Registration number and hence prayed to allow the complaint and award the damages as claimed in the complaint as stated above. Hence this complaint.

4.     The notice sent to O.P returned unclaimed as per the endorsement of the postal authorities and hence the forum inferred that it is due service of notice and hence posted the complaint for complainant’s evidence. Complainant in order to prove their case examined the 1^st complainant as CW-1 and got marked 8 documents on their behalf.

5.      We have carefully gone through the entire evidence and documents produced by the complainant. After hearing their counsel, the following points arise for our consideration:-

                                1)   Whether the complainants have proved

                     deficiency in service on the part of the

                     Opposite Party?

2)  Whether the complainants are entitled to

     the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT 1): In the affirmative.

POINT 2): Partly in the affirmative  

               as per the final order.

REASONS

ON POINT No.1:-

7.  In order to prove the case, the 1^st complainant has filed his affidavit evidence mainly reiterating the facts as stated in the complaint.  They have also produced the broacher about the facilities offered by the O.P., the Bill for having received Rs.46,686/- towards transportation of goods from Mumbai to Bengaluru, Emails, Letter written by the complainant to the O.P., drivers copy,  self serving details regarding breakage of the glass and other articles worth Rs.40,000/-, missing items of fan, sarees, clothes and other things it worth Rs.20,000/- and article reported in Times of India on January 19, 2018. 

8.    From the very documents it becomes clear that, the complainant was residing in Mumbai and handed over all the house hold articles for transportation to Bengaluru through the O.P for consideration of Rs.46,686/- which has been acknowledged by O.P by issuing the bill bearing No.70431 dated 20.10.2017.  The details mentioned therein is transportation charges Rs.23,000/-, Insurance at 3% Rs.6,000/- extra package Rs.9,500/- entry tax Rs.1,500/-, service tax, Rs.6,200/- in all Rs.46,686/-. 

9.    In the quotation given by O.P it is mentioned that including packing, loading, unloading unpacking service charge and compressive risk and transportation charges it is Rs.23,000/- the same has been mentioned as Rs.23,000/- in the bill. The list of 62 bags have been taken for possession by O.P for transportation on 20.10.2017. The documents produced do not clearly mention as to when exactly i.e. date and time the said articles agreed to be delivered. Inspite of it, considering the distance between Mumbai and Bengaluru, it may take one and half days to two days, that means, on 22.10.2017 the O.P ought to have delivered the goods in good condition and as per the invoice he ought to have get it unpacked.  

10.   As per the say of the complainants they received the goods only on 27.10.2017 that too at 9 p.m. i.e. in the night. It is to be considered here that the complainants are senior citizens and at the said hour it would be very difficult for any person to get mazdoors to get it unpacked. In view of this O.P has put the complainant in a difficult situation due to the inefficient service in not delivering the goods within a reasonable time and not unpacked the same which amounts to deficiency in service.

11.    Though there are 62 bags containing articles handed over to O.P for transportation, there is no mention of details as to what it contains.  Though the complainants have stated that glass and other articles were damaged, cloths and other articles are missing, to substantiate the same there is no enough materials placed to arrive at the conclusion that really the glass and other articles damaged and cloths and other articles not delivered. There is no mention of non-delivery of the articles said to have been missing by the complainant at the time of taking delivery of the articles. In view of this we are constrained to hold that there are no sufficient evidence to infer that certain goods were not delivered and the glass items which were delivered were broken as claimed by the complainants.

12.    It is to be seen here that O.P has collected Rs.6,000/- towards insurance from the complainants. The same has not been accounted to even after the complainants have demanded for it by issuing emails and writing letters. It is the duty of the O.P to given account for, far the amount received from the complainants on various heads. 

13.    If at all the O.P had delivered the goods booked for transportation with him within a reasonable time and had it disclosed the exact amount for which he has taken insurance for transportation, the complainants would not have approach this Forum.  O.P has refuse to claim the notice sent by this Forum.  In view of this, it to be inferred here that, the O.P did not deliver the goods within the reasonable time and did not get it unpacked at the time of delivery though it is mentioned in the quotation for packing and moving which has caused much inconvenience, hardship to the complainants, which is sheer negligence on the part of the O.P and also amounts to deficiency in service for which complainants have to be compensated. Hence we answer point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINT NO.2:-

14.   Complainants have claimed for a sum of Rs.3,86,000/-  as mentioned above. Since there is no clear cut evidence regarding the damages to the glassware and other articles, since there is no evidence regarding non-delivering of the fan, cloths and other things, the complainants are not entitle for Rs.60,000/- claimed in this regard. 

15.    They have claimed refund of Rs.6,000/- which was collected from them by the O.P towards insurance. Inspite of repeated request to provide the details, O.P has not given the said details and hence they are entitle for the same.  

16.   Further  the complainants have claimed Rs.20,000/- for not delivering the goods within a reasonable time and made them to suffer for engaging other persons for unpacking and had to suffer for not getting their goods in time. They have also claimed the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards causing mental harassment which has not been fully substantiated.

17.    We are of the opinion that if the O.P is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards insurance money collected, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards delay in delivering the goods and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards not unpacking the goods though they have charged for it and for the mental and physical harassment a sum of Rs.50,000/- ends of justice will be met.

18.    Complainants as stated by them are 76 years and 72 years old and they are senior citizens.  The deficiency in service by the O.Ps have made them to approach this Forum for which they have spent time, energy besides suffering physical strain in coming to the Forum on the days of hearing which could have been avoided had the O.Ps approached the complainants after receiving the emails and got it settled. In view of this, a sum of Rs.25,000/- is ordered to be paid by the O.P towards the expenses of litigation and answer Point No.2 partly affirmative as hereunder:

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed with cost.

2. The OP i.e Best Agarwal Packers and Movers represented by its Authorized Signatory  is hereby directed to pay Rs.6,000/- collected towards insurance, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards delay in delivering the goods and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards not unpacking the goods and Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical harassment.

  3. Further O.P is hereby directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses.

4.     The O.P is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.

5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 21^st Day of April 2018)

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

*RAK

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

CW-1: Mr.S.Divakara – Complainant No.1.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex.C1: Copy of the Quotation dated.30.09.2017.

Ex. C2: Copy of the Bill dated 20.10.2017 issued by the O.P.

Ex.C3: Copy of the Packing list.

Ex.C4: Copy of the email correspondences.

Ex.C5 & C6: Copy of the notices (2 in Nos.)

Ex C7: Copy of the website page of O.P.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1 – Nil -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

– Nil -

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT