BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 08^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022

   ORDER

SRI.K.S.BILAGI, PRESIDENT

        This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 35 of C.P. Act 2019 (herein after referred as “Act”)  against the OP seeking an order to direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the damaged articles, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of this proceeding.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:

The complainant having hired the service of OP for shifting house hold articled paid R.1,05,800/- by assessing the value of goods to be shifted at Rs.3,00,000/-. Even though 117 articles packed on 08.09.2021, but OP handed over the delivery in two sets of 47 articles on 16.09.2020 and 70 articles on 21.09.2021.

3.     OP not only committed delay in delivery of goods but some of the articles have been damaged.  The cost of the damaged articles is Rs.20,000/-.  The complainant has suffered loss mentally and therefore this complaint is filed as OP has committed deficiency of service.

4.     Despite receipt of notice, OP failed to appear before this commission.  OP has been placed exparte.

5.     The complainant files affidavit evidence and relies on 11 documents.  Heard the arguments of complainant only and perused the records.

6.     The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs mentioned in the complaint?
3. What  order?

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1 :- Affirmative

      Point No.2 :-  Affirmative

       Point No.3:- As per the final order.

                                REASONS

8.     Point No.1 and 2:     Even though OP has been placed exparte, it is the duty of this Commission to assess truth or otherwise of the case of the complaint.  The allegations made in the complaint are being spoken by the complainant by filing his affidavit evidence and documentary evidence.

9.     We carefully perused the allegations made in the complaint, affidavit evidence and documentary evidence of the complainant.

10.   The complainant hired the service of the OP for shifting his house hold articles by paying Rs.1,05,800/-.  This fact is proved from Ex.P1.  Ex.P2 and P3 indicate that the complainant had hired the service of the complainant for shifting in all 117 house hold articles.  Ex.P3 indicates that some of the articles were damaged.  Ex.P4 and P5 are the two certificates.  Ex.P6 is the bunch of emails.  Complainant issued emails and called upon the OP about the delay in delivery of goods and pay cost of the damaged goods.  The complainant by issuing Ex.P7  which is served on the OP as per Ex.P9 and P10.  OP has not issued any reply denying its liability.  The boxes were supplied by the OPs.  We are concerned about the damage caused to the articles.  It is relevant to note that even though complainant claims Rs.20,000/- towards cost of damaged goods and even though OP has not appeared before this Commission, but the complainant has not furnished the details of value of each of the damaged articles.  In the absence of detailed evidence we cannot be assessed the value of the damaged articles as Rs.20,000/- but is proper to asses at Rs.10,000/- towards cot of damaged goods.  The OP despite receipt of notice failed to respond.  Under such circumstances, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency of service.  The complainant claims Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation which is exorbitant. Looking into the facts and evidences of the complainant, it is proper to award Rs.5,000/- towards compensation.  No court fee has been paid on the complaint as the value of the service is less than Rs.5,00,000/-.  The complainant is appeared in person.  Therefore cost of this proceeding is quantified at Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly we answer point NO.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.

11.   POINT NO.3: In view of the discussion referred above complaint requires to be allowed in part.  OP is liable to pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the damaged goods.  Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. In the result, we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Allowed in part.
2. OP shall pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of damaged goods, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. The OP shall comply this order within 45 days from the date of its order till the realization.
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 08^TH day of August, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :  NIL

HAV*