BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C.No. 240/2009 Dated: 31..12..2009 Complainant: Col. S.K. Nair (Retd), Remanilayam, Near Kadakkavoor, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 306. Opposite party:
Chennai Packers & Movers, JPR Palace, 25/1, 100 feet Road, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Kolathur, Chennai – 99.
This O.P having been heard on 05..12..2009, the Forum on 31..12..2009 delivered the following: ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
Facts of the case are as follows: The complainant and his family were staying at Secunderabad. He hired Chennai Packers & Movers (opposite party) for transporting his house hold goods and Car Maruti Zen from Secunderabad to Kadakkavoor. The house hold goods were to be transported in a truck/container and the car by a car carrier for an agreed amount of Rs.28,575/- for the goods and Rs.12,000/- for the car. The house hold goods and the car were handed over to the opposite party on 07/05/2009. The kilometer reading of the car was 58659 while handed over at Secunderabad. The house hold articles were delivered at Kadakkavoor on 10/5/2009, but the car was delivered only on 13/5/2009. On delivery of the car at Kadakkavoor it was found that instead of packing, loading and transportation as agreed and paid, the car was driven from Secunderabad covering 1711 kilometers, by another agency called JKV Cargo Movers whom the car was handed over by the opposite party without the permission of the complainant. The complainant states that the car was used as a taxi enroute to Kadakkavoor in violation of the agreement causing wear and tear to the engine, tyres and other accessories. Complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for getting compensation for the loss and damage caused by the complainant for the unauthorised use of the car.
2. The opposite party in this case is Chennai Packers & Movers. The opposite party accepted notice from this Forum, but never turned up to contest the case. Hence opposite party remains ex-parte. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 5 documents. The documents produced by the complainant marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Points that would arise for consideration are:
Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
4. Points (i) & (ii): To prove his contentions the complainant has filed proof affidavit and produced 5 documents. The complainant hired the opposite party for transporting his house hold goods and car bearing Reg.No.AP 09-AD-2040 from Secunderabad to Kadakkavoor. As per the agreement, the house hold goods were to be transported in a truck and the car by a car carrier for an agreed amount of Rs. 28,575/- for the goods and Rs.1,200/- for the car. Ext. P1 is the quotation dated 29/03/2009 issued by the opposite party. Ext.P2 is the bill dated 7/3/2009 for Rs.28,575/- for the transportation of house hold goods. Ext.P3 is the cash receipt No.7139 dated 7/5/2009 for Rs.28,575/- issued by the opposite party. Ext.P5 is the cash receipt dated 7/5/2009 for Rs.12,000/- for the transportation of the car. Through the documents the complainant proved the transaction between the complainant and opposite party. As per the agreement the house hold goods were delivered at Kadakkavoor on 10/5/2009 but the car was delivered only on 13/5/2009. But it was found that instead of packing, loading and transportation through the car carrier as agreed and paid, the car was delivered from Secunderabad covering 1711 kilometers by another agency called JKV Cargo Movers whom the car was handed over by opposite party without the permission of the complainant. Ext. P4 is the consignor copy of JKV Cargo Movers. In this document we can see that the car was covering 1711 kilometres from Secunderabad to Kadakkavoor. This document proves the allegation of the complainant that instead of transporting the car through car carrier the opposite party had unauthorisedly driven the car from Secunderabad to Kadakkavoor, in violation of the agreement. The act of the opposite party is against the complainant. The act committed by the opposite party definitely caused huge loss and damages to the complainant due to wear and tear on the engine, tyres and other accessories of the vehicle. The complainant in this case succeeded to prove his case with ample evidences. Moreover the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. Hence the complaint is allowed.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of December, 2009.
BEENA KUMARI. A, MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
ad.
C.C.No. 240/2009
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents: P1 : Photocopy of quotation letter No.1518 dated 29/03/2009 issued by opposite party.
P2 : " bill dated 7/5/2009 issued by opposite party.
P3 : " cash receipt No.7139 dated 7/5/2009 issued by opposite party. P4 : " consignor copy, consignment No. 061 dated 7/5/2009.
P5 : " cash receipt No.7138 dated 7/5/2009 issued by opposite party.
Opposite party's witness : NIL
IV. Opposite party's documents : NIL
PRESIDENT.
| 
