PRESENT: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the Complainant.

         Sh.Palvinder Singh, Adv. for OP No.2.

           OP No.1 already ex-parte.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, for packing and transit of his household articles from Chennai to Chandigarh, the Complainant availed the services of OPs on 21.8.2008 by paying a sum of Rs.9,000/-. The articles were packed and loaded in the truck by the OPs on 22.8.2008. The said delivery was door to door delivery. A list of the articles was also prepared by the OPs (Annexure C-3), which included steel drum and three carton boxes which contained utensils, cosmetics and other small household and decorative items. He was assured that the articles would reach Chandigarh within a week. After one week, when he contacted the OPs, he was asked to wait for few more days. Thereafter, he again contacted the OPs, but got the same answer again. Finally, he received the articles on 24.9.2008 i.e. after more than one month and was shocked to notice that his brand new A.C., Dressing Table, Mattress and T.V. were in a damaged condition. The Steel Buckets were dented, one photo frame was also in a total damaged condition. The front doom of the bike were broken into pieces, Engine silencer was damaged with scratches all over the body. The almirah had an infinite number of dents on it. New helmet had scratches all over. He also noticed that certain items were missing i.e. remote of A.C., remote of T.V., photo frame, face gel, scrub, shampoo, cold cream, ghiaghas, praat, two steel bowls and nine steel glasses. He immediately brought all this to the notice of the OPs, but they flatly refused to entertain him. Ultimately, a legal notice dated 31.10.2008 was served upon the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

a)  To refund the amount of Rs.9,000/- with interest @9% p.a.

b)  The OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the accommodation taken on rent, damaged and missing articles.

c)  To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the Complainant and his family.

d)  To pay the cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.11,000/-.

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. OP No.1 did not turn up despite due service of notice, therefore, they were proceeded against exparte. 

3]      OP No.2 in their written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case/reply, pleaded that the Complainant had made a concocted story just to harass and humiliate the OPs. The delivery of the articles were given to the Complainant within one month from the booking of the said articles. Furthermore, the Complainant had received the articles on 24.9.2008, after checking the same and after satisfying himself, he signed the receipt, but cleverly with an intention to gain himself and wrongful loss to OPs, he made remarks on the receipt that some of the material was damaged. It was denied that the articles were damaged. It was further pleaded that the materials were packed with seals and even at the time of handing over the said articles, the seals of the boxes of the articles were in its original condition, so the question of missing articles does not arise. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant and OP No. 2, (OP No.1 being ex-parte). As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant having booked his household articles from Chennai to Chandigarh on 21.8.2008, by paying a sum of Rs.9,000/- with door-to-door delivery and that the household items in question were packed and loaded in their Truck by the OPs on 22.8.2008 and the same were received by the Complainant in Chandigarh on 24.09.2008 i.e. after more than one month, have all been admitted. It is also a fact that when the goods were delivered by the OP to the Complainant, the Complainant wrote a note on the Delivery Receipt that there was damage in Air Conditioner, when he received the goods on 24.09.2008.

ii] The main dispute between the parties is on two counts:-

(a) That the goods booked by the Complainant were expected to reach Chandigarh maximum within a week from the date of dispatch; whereas, the same reached its destination after one month.

(b) That the goods were sealed and packed by the OPs at Chennai and when the same were delivered at Chandigarh on 24.09.2008, many of the items were found to be in a damaged condition, for which the Complainant has recorded a note on the delivery Challan, saying that the Air Conditioner in a damaged condition. Further, some of the items were altogether missing in the lot.

iii]   The allegations leveled by the Complainant have been denied by the OPs, saying that since the goods were carried from Chennai to Chandigarh through a transport carrier i.e. Truck, it takes quite some time for the goods to reach Chandigarh and the period of one month is quite normal for the goods to reach its destination. To the second point of damage to the goods, the OPs says that all the household articles were properly packed and sealed at Chennai and even at the time of handing over the said articles to the Complainant, the seals of the boxes containing articles were in their original condition and, therefore, the question of certain items being damaged or remaining missing does not arise. 

6]      The detailed study of the entire case shows that there has been definitely some delay in delivering the household items to the Complainant at Chandigarh i.e. instead of delivering the same within a week, the same were instead delivered after a month, which is surely a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The delay of about 03 weeks has not been properly and adequately explained by the OPs. Secondly, in respect of damage caused to the goods or the loss of certain items, the Complainant has already made a note on the delivery  Challan that the Air Conditioner was found to be in a damaged condition. So far as the other items either missing or damaged are concerned, it is quite obvious that the same could not have been detected or seen unless and until the sealed boxes were opened and goods taken out from them, which is quite a time consuming process. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Complainant had come to know about the missing/ damaged items only after he opened the sealed packets and found them in a damaged condition or that some of these were missing altogether. Therefore, there is no reason to doubt the bonafides of the Complainant in making such a complaint in respect of damage to the items or the loss of certain items. However, the claim made by the Complainant is very tall and unrealistic to the tune of Rs.3.00 lacs, in the absence of any valuation of goods and also their net value after providing for depreciation etc. Secondly, the Complainant has not made any declaration on the consignment note no. CHN1/1275, through which the goods were booked by him from Chennai to Chandigarh. Further, the goods were not even insured for a proper value. In the absence of these documents, it is very difficult to assess the real value of goods.  We also cannot grant any relief to the Complainant on account of consequential losses suffered by him on account of availing accommodation taken on rent etc. as also for the transport charges paid by him to OPs as the goods have actually been transported from Chennai to Chandigarh. Therefore, the only alternative left with this Forum is to give compensation to the Complainant only on notional basis, as the OPs have surely been deficient in rendering service to the Complainant. It is proved beyond doubt that not only the OPs considerably delayed the delivery of goods to the Complainant, but also did not take proper care in handling the items during transit, which resulted in damage to certain goods and also loss of certain other items.

7]      Keeping in view the above detailed analysis of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the present Complaint has a lot of weight, merit and substance in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs. We, therefore, decide the complaint accordingly.

8]      In view of above, we accept the present complaint favouring the Complainant and pass orders against the OPs. The OPs shall, jointly and severally, make the following payments to the Complainant:- 

(a) a sum of Rs.10,000/- for causing damage to the Air Conditioner/ other items and on account of loss of certain items during transit, as explained by the Complainant in the complaint, resulting in financial loss to him.

(b) a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and causing mental agony pain and anguish suffered by the Complainant and his family.

(c) a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of litigation.

9]      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 04 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the same, failing which, they shall, jointly and severally, pay the sum of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 26.06.2009, till the date of realization, besides paying the cost of litigation at Rs.5,000/-.

10]    Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file