Order-20.

Date-08/02/2017.

       Shri Pulak Kr. Singha, Member.

In brief the case of the complainant is that the complainant purchase some house hold appliances for his own use, like-Gas Hob, Chimney, Deed tryer compination oven, Induction Hob, Dishwasher, Washingmachine and Dryer from Op-2 and paid Rs.4,03,650/- and 1,19,250/- on different dates through cheque against which Op-1 issued two Tax invoices. As per instruction of complainant Op-1 agreed to deliver the house hold appliances in consideration of freight changes. Accordingly goods were delivered at complainant address through Op-4, Blue dart courier, Kolkata office on 23/05/2014 in a damaged condition of one product namely built in Steam Oven, Serial no.HB364575 costing about Rs.1,29,600/- with rat  at the rate of12.5 percent. After receipt of delivered items under protest the complainant raised objection as most of the box were damages and out of all the products one built in Steam oven has been badly damaged.

The complainant immediately lodged complain through e mail to the Op nos.1,2 an 4 on 26/05/2014 with a request for immediate replacement of the product. Thereafter Op-2 sent their mechanic through Kolkata service centre, who inspected the damaged product on 28/05/2014 and wrote in the jobsheet that .Machine is damaged, found Doot broken, Machine totally alignment, not ok and central module is crack.. OP-4 by sending email on 30/06/2014 demanded freight charges and other ops were kept silence though all the products were, under Insurance coverage.

The complainant repeatedly requested to the ops for replacement of damaged products which is lying at the residence of the complainant but ops did not pay heed to the complain of the complainant, as such the complainant appeared before this Forum with the prayer as mentioned in the complaint.

Op-3 contested the case by filing W.V denying the allegations of the complainant stating  interalia that  Op-3 is not at all responsible for damage to the goods during transit complainant filed this case merely to harass and gain undue advantage. This op is only the manufacturing unit.This op has no deficiency of service,  this complaint shall be dismissed.

Op-4 contested the case by filing W.V denying the allegation of complainant stating interalia that the shipper had opted for at owner’s Risk arrangement , the actual value of document or parcel shall be ascertained by reference to the cost of preparation or replacement value at the time and place of shipment but under no circumstances shall exceed Rs.5000/-. This Op pray to dismiss the complaint.

Op-1 and 2 evenafter service of summon neither appear nor contested the case. So, the case is heard ex-parte against OP-1 and 2.

                                                      Points for decision

1. Whether Ops were deficient in Service ?
2.  Whether complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

We travelled over the complaint, evidences, documents and considered the arguments advanced by the parties. We find that complainant purchased some house hold appliance from Op-1 and paid Rs.5,22,900/- on different dates through cheques to Op-1. Op-1 contacted with Op-4 to delivered the house hold articles with consideration of Rs.35034/- including cost of Insurance of the products will have to been the complainant as transportation charge. Accordingly eight items of house hold appliances like Gas Hob, Chimney, Hobs, Build in steam oven, induction Hob, Washing Machine, condenser Dryre and Dishwasher whose actual weight 233 Kg and volumetric weight 588 kg. Which were carried and delivered by single delivery boy named by Prasanta Das, on 23/05/2014 those items were delivered complainants address through Op-4 and at the time of receiving those items complainant raised objection that most of the boxes were damaged and out of all the product One Built in steam oven has ben damaged badly on 26/05/2014 complainant intimated the matter to Op-4 that she received the house hold products under protest stating that single person delivered the goods at 11^th floor with eight items whose gross weight 588 kg and out of total item one Built in Steam oven has fully damaged.

Op-4 by sending email demanded freight charges without settling the disputes regarding damaged item, through the complainant is willing to pay freight charges after setteling the disputes.

Op-2 after receiving the complain from complainant sent Mechanic who inspected the damaged products on 28/05/2014 and after inspection in the job sheet mentioned that .Machine is damaged, found of broken , Machine totally alignment, not ok and central module is crack.. Moreover in delivery chalan ofRs.4,03,660/- it is also mentioned that this .PC is full damaged from front to top, not useable.. Complainant received the house hold appliances on 23/05/2014 at 4.40 p.m. and she immediately intimated the matter in respect of damage appliance to the ops but none of the ops dis not take reasonable care though companies mechanic detected the damages article and noted his comments in the jobsheets. It appears from the documents the damage cost in transit period. OP-4 should more careful and causes before delivery of such voluminous products at 11^th floor of the complainant  premises and if so then damage of articles can be avoided.

From the documents and report of mechanic in the job card that the product packings were mis handling by the person of Op-4 for which the Built in Steam oven was badly damaged. Op-1 is also liable for deficient of service as he has entrusted Op-4 to deliver the articles to the complainant. For such act Op-1 and Op-4 were negligent and deficient in service for which the complainant is entitled to get relief.

In view of the above facts the complaint case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and same is allowed on contest against Op-1 and 4 with cost of Rs.5,000/- each and dismissed exparte against Op-2 and 3 .

Op-1 and 4 are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.1,29,660/- minus vat  at the rate of12.5 percent apart from above mentioned litigation cost to the complainant within One month from the date of this order.

Op-1 and 4 also jointly or severally directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing harassment, mental and agony to the complainant within the said stipulated period.

The complainant is also directed to pay Rs.28,085/- for freight charges to Op-4 reciprocally within the said period.

Failure to comply with the order will entitle either of the parties to put the order into execution u/s 25 read with Sec-27 of the C.P Act and In that event the defaulting party will be liable to pay penal damage  at the rate ofRs.5,000/- per month to be paid to this Forum till full and final satisfaction of the decree.