Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/829/2022

RAVINDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GATI LTD THROUGH IT MD - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY PAL SINGH

04 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Ravinder Pal Singh, R/o H.No.688, Milk Colony Dhanas, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Gati Ltd., through its M.D. Plot No.20, Survey No.12, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084.

Eamil: Branch Manager, Branch Office Gati-kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd., Hadbast No.234 Godown Area, Village-Pabhat, Near Surjit Transport, Zirakpur.

Eamil:

Email:

… Opposite Parties

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant contacted the OP No.3 for transporting his parcels from Chandigarh to Mangalore. Thereafter, on 2.11.2021, OP No.3 team came to the house of the complainant and packed and picked up the packets from the complainant’s home. The complainant was assured that the luggage will be delivered to him in Mangalore by next Monday which is 8^th of November for if there is a slight delay due to Deepawali may be on Tuesday or Wednesday, which is 9^th or 10^th November (Ex.C-1 to C-2). The complainant paid Rs.6,500/- as were demanded by the OP No.3. The OP No.3 handed over the packages to the officials of the OP No.1 & 2 to be sent to Mangalore. It is further stated that as per the tracking report the packages reached Mangalore on 14^th November no attempt was made to deliver it to complainant on 14^th or 15^th. On 16^th November evening complainant was told by OP No.3 on conference call that package will be delivered on 17^th. Complainant contacted the OP No.1 Mangalore office who asked him to come to their office which was 10 to 12 kms from, where complainant was staying and get it picked up as they showed their inability to deliver it. The complainant went to their office and collected the parcels around 9 pm, the parcels were making some rattling sound but the officials did not let open the packages in their office. On reaching his place, on opening the packages, the computer and other components were found to be completely broken. Immediately complainant informed OP No.3 about the same and also shared the pictures with him on the same day (Ex.C-6). The complainant was categorically asked not to do anything as they the Gati team will get examined the damage, for loss assessment but that never happened and complainant spent many days sitting at room waiting for the Gati officials to come and assess the damage. The complainant tried many times to reach to the OPs for the redressal of his complaint, but no avail. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that there is no booking of any consignment by complainant with OP No.1 & 2. OP No.3 is neither authorized agent or dealer nor having any relationship with the OP No.1 & 2. It is further stated that the complainant booked consignment of 2 packages containing computers, etc., with the OP No.3. The receipt has been issued by OP No.3, with no reference of OP No.1 & 2. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1 & 2.
3.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.3 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.3 despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte on 09.05.2023.
4.     No rejoinder was filed by the complainant.
5.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.1 & 2 and gone through the record of the case.
7.     On perusal of complaint, it is gathered that the main grievance of the complainant is that the items in parcels booked by him with OP No.3, were found damaged, when received at its destination.
8.     On perusal of Annexure C-1 to C-3, it is observed that the said parcels in question were booked by complainant with OP No.3 and a payment of Rs.6,500/- was made towards booking of the said consignment.
9.     On perusal of the documents, there is no reference to booking of any goods by the complainant with the OP No.1 & 2. Hence, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP No.1 & 2.
10.     Significantly, OP No.3 did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.3 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP No.3 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
11.     On perusal of the documents & correspondence of complainant with OP No.1, 2 & 3, it is very clear that the consignment received at its destination was found damaged and the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony & physical harassment and the complainant needs to be compensated for the same.  
12.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.3 is directed as under :-

1. to pay lumpsum compensation of ₹30,000/- towards repairs of computers and compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

         The consumer complaint qua OP No.1 & 2 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

13.     This order be complied with by the OP No.3 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
14.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
15.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.