CONSUMER CASE No.- 01/2020
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
The case of complainant Sri Ratnadeep Chakraborty, in brief, is that he purchased a Solar Water Heating System, ETCPC, JALSUM ( with Asstt. Tank Model), 300LPD from Neutech Solar System Pvt. Ltd. , Bangalore on 17/01/2019 by incurring Rs.45,200/- ( Rupees forty five thousand two hundred ) only for his personal use. That for transportation of said goods to Silchar the complainant hired services of Opposite Parties Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. by paying transportation amount of Rs.7,500/- and for packing of glass items an amount of Rs.2,500/-. It is further stated that on 06/02/2019 when the delivery boy of the O.Ps. came to the residence of the complainant with four nos. of packet then the items were examined in presence of the delivery boy and it was found that the said items damaged and broken into pieces. As the complainant refused to receive the damaged articles so the delivery boy took the packets back with him. Thereafter on 09/02/2019 the complainant informed the O.Ps. through e-mail regarding damaged and broken condition of the goods . The O.Ps. conveyed their apology for the inconvenience caused and further requested the complainant to receive the said goods and to furnish the scan copies of i) Docket copy ii) Damage estimate repair bill iii) Invoice copy or declaration letter iv) packing list v) damage goods picture vi) claim letter etc. The complainant then received the goods. Subsequently though the complainant sent to the O.P. all those required documents , photos etc. through mails but the O.P. did not give positive response and also failed to pay the estimated amount of damage of goods. Legal notice was also sent to the O.Ps. On 02/05/2019 the O.Ps. denied the claim of the complainant and further asked him to provide docket number of the goods and all other documents. Though the complainant through his engaged counsel sent a letter dated 24/05/2019 alongwith the docket receipt and other documents but nothing has been paid from the side of the O.Ps. Under the circumstances the complainant has prayed for passing a decree of compensation of Rs.35,400/- for cost of damage of goods, compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental shock, agony & harassment and for further compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
O.P. Nos. 1,2 & 3 jointly filed written statement stating, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable, that it is barred under the provisions of the C.P. Act, that the complaint is bad for defect of parties etc. The O.Ps. have denied the allegations levelled by the complainant. It is stated by the O.Ps. that if any consignment has been booked by the complainant, then it has been booked on shipper’s risk basis which means if any damage is occurred then only consignor i.e., the complainant will be solely liable and not the consignor i.e., the O.Ps. It is further stated that the damage of articles has not been assessed by any independent surveyor. Under the circumstances the answering O.Ps. have prayed for dismissal of the case with costs.
In support of the case complainant Sri Ratnadeep Chakraborty submitted his evidence on affidavit as sole prosecution witness (PW) and exhibited some documents. On the other hand, from the side of Opposite Parties evidence on affidavit of one Sri Rang Lal Sharma was also submitted as DW-1. Written argument submitted in the case . Perused the materials on record. Let us now appreciate the evidence below.
In his evidence the PW i.e., the complainant has reiterated the same facts as stated in his complaint petition. It has been stated by the PW that he purchased a Solar Water Heating System, ETCPC, JALSUM ( with Asstt. Tank Model), 300LPD from Neutech Solar System Pvt. Ltd. , Bangalore on 17/01/2019 by incurring Rs.45,200/- ( Rupees forty five thousand two hundred ) only for his personal use of which Ext.-1 is the bill of sale. According to the PW, he booked his order dated 18/01/2019 vide docket no. 477441523 of which Ext.-2 is the docket receipt. That for transportation of said goods to Silchar the service of O.P. Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. was hired by paying transportation amount of Rs.7,500/- and also Rs.2,500/- for packing of glass items . It is further stated by the PW that on 06/02/2019 the delivery boy of the O.Ps. came to his residence with four nos. of packet and after examining the items in presence of the delivery boy it was found damaged and broken into pieces. As he refused to receive the damaged articles so the delivery boy took the packets back with him. Thereafter, as contended by the PW, on 09/02/2019 he informed the O.Ps. through e-mail regarding damaged and broken condition of the goods and on reply the O.Ps. conveyed their apology for the inconvenience caused and further requested him to receive the said goods and to furnish the scan copies of i) Docket copy ii) Damage estimate repair bill iii) Invoice copy or declaration letter iv) packing list v) damage goods picture vi) claim letter etc. According to the PW he then received the goods and sent to the O.P. all those required documents , photos etc. through mails but the O.P. did not give positive response and also failed to pay the estimated amount of damage of goods. Legal notice was also issued to the O.Ps. and on 02/05/2019 the O.Ps. denied the claim and further asked the PW to provide docket number of the goods and all other documents. It has been averred by the PW that through his engaged counsel letter was issued on 24/05/2019 alongwith the docket receipt and other documents but nothing has been paid from the side of the O.Ps. In support of his evidence the PW has exhibited several documents vide Ext.-1 toExt.-13. On the other hand, though in his evidence DW-1 has not disputed the fact that the alleged items i.e., Solar Water Heating System purchased by the complainant was transported by the O.Ps. and some items were found in damaged/broken condition at the time of delivery but the version of DW-1 is that if any consignment has been booked by the complainant, then it has been booked on shipper’s risk basis which means if any damage is caused then only consigner i.e., the complainant will be solely liable and not the carrier i.e., the O.Ps. It has been further averred that if the complainant does not insure the goods then it was his fault and for his own fault he can not shift the responsibility upon the opposite party. Moreover it is stated by DW-1 that the complainant at his own motion has calculated the so-called damage though it is required to be assessed by a professional Insurance Surveyor & Loss Assessor.
Admittedly the articles of the complainant were carried by the O.P from Bengalore to Silchar and Ext.-2& Ext.-3 are the receipts of the same. Ext.-2 also goes to show that some goods were totally damaged. Exts.-7 & Ext.-8 picture also support the fact. On the other hand though DW-1 has claimed that it is the duty of the complainant to insure the goods when he engaged the O.P. to carry those goods and if any goods is damaged at the time of transportation then the O.P. is not liable this excuse can not be accepted as there is nothing in the case record to show that the O.P. informed the complainant before transportation that he is required to insure the goods and pay the insure charges extra otherwise in case of damage of any article the O.P. will not be liable. The papers exhibited by the PW futher prove the fact that the O.P. asked the complainant to sent the docket copy, damage estimate repair bill, packing list, damage goods picture etc and the complainant intimated the required things to the O.P. but the O.P. did not take any step to solve the claim of the complainant thus causing disservice to the complainant. It is a fact that the complainant did not get the value of the damaged articles determined by any Loss Assessor and the O.Ps. have disputed the value of the damage articles. But from their side they also did not take any step to fix the value of the damage articles by determining the same by any expert. Under the circumstances from the materials on record we are of the considered opinion that the O.Ps. are liable to pay the compensation to the complainant as below.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the O.Ps. jointly shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- ( Rupees twenty five thousand ) only to the complainant towards cost of damage of goods. The O.Ps. shall further pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- ( Rupees two thousand) only for mental agony, pain & harassment and another amount of Rs. 3,000/- ( Rupees three thousand ) only towards cost of litigation. The entire amount shall be payable within a period of 90 ( ninety) days failing which interest @ 9 % per annum would accrue on the amount from the date of this judgment till realization.
With the above relief awarded the case stands allowed on contest against O.P. Nos. 1,2 & 3. The judgment is pronounced with our seal and signature on this 30st day of January’2023.
