Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/102/2024

RAVINDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

GATI LTD - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY PAL SINGH

13 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	102 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	28.02.2024
Date of Decision	:	13.06.2024

 

Ravinder Pal Singh S/o Kulwant Singh R/o House No.688, Milk Colony, Dhanas, Chandigarh.

   …Appellant/Complainant.

V e r s u s

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

2]      Branch Manager, Branch Office Gati – Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd., Hadbast No.234, Godown Area, Village-Pabhat, Near Surjit Transport, Zirakpur. 

3]      Surender Sharma, Proprietor, Trans Cargo in India, Packers & Movers (Regd.), Shop No.4, Ranjan Plaza, Main Lottery Bazar, Zirakpur, Punjab – 140603.

          Second Address: 10, Bhabat Village, Zirakpur, Punjab.

…..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:    MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                   MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

 

ARGUED BY:-     

 

Sh. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

Respondents exparte vide order dated 18.04.2024.

 

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   Instant appeal has been filed by the complainant - Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh (appellant herein) for enhancement in the compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide order dated 04.01.2024 passed in consumer complaint bearing No.829 of 2022 on the ground that the District Commission failed to comprehend and adequately compensate the complainant for mental and physical harassment and agony suffered by him who was left in such a situation because of the damage caused by mishandling of his parcels and the post-delivery experience and the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties (respondents herein) to properly redress his grievance. The District Commission, while allowing the consumer complaint of the appellant, directed opposite party No.3/respondent No.3 to pay lumpsum compensation of ₹30,000/- towards repairs of computers and compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him besides payment of ₹10,000/- as costs of litigation. However, it (District Commission) dismissed the complaint against opposite parties No.1 & 2/respondents No.1 & 2.

2]                Before the District Commission, opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte on 09.05.2023 as nobody appeared on its behalf despite service. Whereas opposite parties No.1 & 2/respondents No.1 & 2 contested the complaint by filing their reply wherein it was stated that there was no booking of any consignment by the complainant with them. It was further stated that opposite party No.3 was neither their authorized agent/dealer nor having any relationship with them. It was stated that the complainant booked consignment of 2 packages containing computers, etc., with opposite party No.3 who issued the receipt.

3]                Per record, it is evident that there is no reference to the complainant booking any goods with respondents No.1 & 2. Consequently, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and these opposite parties. However, it is noteworthy that respondent No.3/opposite party No.3 did not appear to contest the complainant's claim before the District Commission, choosing instead to proceed ex parte. This absence of response from respondent No.3 led to an adverse inference against it. Its failure to appear before the District Commission indicated that it had no defense against the allegations made by the appellant in his complaint. Therefore, the assertions made by the appellant/complainant remained unrebutted and uncontroverted. Not only before the District Commission, even before us, the respondents chose not to appear beside due service and as such, they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 18.04.2024. Furthermore, an examination of the documents particularly photographs appended by the appellant alongwith his complaint as Annexures C-6 and correspondence between the parties revealed that the consignment received at its destination was found to be damaged. On opening the package, the computer was badly broken, which proved opposite party No.3’s unprofessional way of handling the cargo. Vide email dated 23.12.2021, Annexure C-7, the appellant informed the respondents that due to their sheer negligence and mishandling of the parcel, the appellant was left with a totally damaged computer, which was his source of income and he had to borrow the computer on rent to survive his assignment term in the completely new city of Mangalore. Further vide Monetary Claim Letter, Annexure C-8, the appellant lodged claim of ₹70,000/- on account of financial loss caused to him due to damage caused to the consignment. Not only this, on account of above deficiency on the part of opposite party No.3, the appellant had to hire a Laptop(s)/Desktop(s)  on rent by paying huge rent and refundable security, which fact stands corroborated vide Invoices dated 09.11.2021, 17.11.2021 and 06.01.2022, Annexures C-10 to C-12.

4]                All above goes to show that the appellant/complainant endured significant mental agony and physical harassment on account of deficiency in rendering service on the part of respondent No.3/opposite party No.3. We may state here that Fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act are quasi judicial bodies, required to observe the principles of natural justice and to award relief of a specific nature and to award wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C.), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainant. The compensation is required to be fair, just and not unreasonable and arbitrary. In the instant case, looking at the sufferance of the appellant on account of mental agony and physical harassment due to deficiency in rendering service on the part of respondent No.3/opposite party No.3, the lumpsum compensation of ₹30,000/- awarded by the District Commission seems to be on the lower side. In our considered view, if the same is enhanced to ₹50,000/-, that will meet the ends of justice and will also indemnify the appellant/complainant for monetary loss on account of renting of computers/laptops and the damage/breakage caused to his computer. 

5]                For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly accepted. The impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed by the District Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh is modified to the extent of enhancement in the compensation and Respondent No.3/Opposite party No.3 is directed as under:-

“i)      to pay lump-sum compensation of ₹50,000/- (instead of ₹30,000/-) to the appellant/ complainant towards repairs of computers and compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.

ii)       to pay ₹10,000/- to the appellant/complainant as cost of litigation.

6]                This order be complied with by respondent No.3/opposite party No.3, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, the aforesaid amount of ₹50,000/- awarded at Sr. No.(i) shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till realization apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(ii) above. 

7]                However, the appeal stands dismissed against respondents No.2 & 3/opposite parties No.2 & 3 with no order as to cost.

8]                Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

9]                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge forthwith.

10]              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

13.06.2024

 [RAJESH K. ARYA]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

(PREETINDER SINGH)

 MEMBER

Ad/-