Date of Filing: 03/03/2016
Date of Order: 28/12/2017
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 alleging the deficiency in service against the opposite party (herein after referred as O.P) and prays for orders to direct the O.P for the following reliefs:
a) To pay a sum of Rs.1,25,770/- towards repair of the car.
b) To pay Rs.10,500/- towards expenses incurred for commutation form home to office and back from 5.7.2015 till date.
c) To pay Rs.3,000/- towards expenses incurred for unloading and unpacking of household articles delivered on 1st July 2015 at Cochin.
e) And to pay Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and tension suffered by the complainant.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant by availing the service of O.P transported the house hold articles and Maruti Zen car bearing No.MH-04-CB-2493 from Bangalore to Cochin on 30.6.2015. Further states that the complainant paid in total Rs.32,380/- to the O.P in order to transfer the above car and household articles. It is stated that the complainant on 1.7.2015 received household articles. It is alleged that despite payment made for the unloading and unpacking of the articles but the complainant was done the same and the O.P promised that they will refund the amount towards unloading and unpacking of the articles. Further states that, one of the representative of the O.P from Cochin on 5.7.2015 informed the complainant that the car which they have transported met with an accident Vadakancherry Palakkad and the O.P informed the complainant that the trailer in which the car was transported broke down and the car was driven and it met with an accident and the car was in Vadakancherry police station. Further complainant states that the O.P assured the complainant that the car will be returned by them and O.P after 10 days informed the complainant police had agreed to release the car from their custody and accordingly the complainant informed popular services Cochin (Authorized Maruti Service Centre) to tow the vehicle from Vadakanchery to Cochin. Further the vehicle was under insurance so the complainant informed the Popular Service to get repair done under insurance. Further on 16.9.2015 the complainant got estimation of repair charge from the Popular center and the estimation cost was Rs.1,25,770.26 for repair and the complainant met the O.P representative and requested them to settle the dues and the O.P promised the complainant to settle the dues. Further states that, the complainant was surprised that they O.P shall not spent more than Rs.10,000/- so the complainant shifted his car local workshop for cheaper rate and the cost of repair was estimated Rs.80,000/-, so the complainant informed the O.P. Further states that, the complainant sent letter to O.P to settle the claim, but the O.P did not reply to the letter. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, the O.P remained absent and hence O.P placed exparte.
4. In order to substantiate the case of the complainant and the Complainant has filed his affidavit evidence along with documentary evidence and we heard the arguments.
5. On the basis of the complaint averments, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A): In the affirmative.
POINT (B): In the partly affirmative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No. (A) & (B):-
7. On perusing the complaint averments and the evidence placed on record, it is the case of the complainant that the complainant availed the service of O.P for transportation of his household items and his car from Bangalore to Cochin. The main allegation of the complainant is that due to the act of the O.P the car of the complainant met with an accident and the complainant incurred loss to an extent of Rs.1,25,770.26.
8. The crux of the matter is to consider whether the O.P is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1,25,770.26 to the complainant towards the accident of the car?
9. The complainant in order to prove his case filed his affidavit evidence and also documentary evidence reiterating all the averments made in the complaint. On perusal of Annexure-1 at Ink page No.6 dated 23.6.2015, it reveals that the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- and Rs.27,380/- paid to the O.P towards transportation charges as evident from the receipts issued by the O.P produced by the complainant. On perusal of copy of First Information Report it reveals that the car met with an accident. On perusal of the estimation towards car repair charges at Ink page 18 it also reveals that the estimation of repair shown as Rs.1,25,770.26. Further on perusal of the letter at Ink page No.19 and 20 it also reveals that the O.P is responsible for damaging the car in an accident and the same is intimated to the knowledge of the complainant that the car is in police station. Further on perusal of the letter at Ink Page no.23 it has been intimated that on 16.9.2015 the process for insurance got over and the service center could get an estimate to an extent of Rs.40,000/- for repair and the insurance has paid the complainant to an extent of Rs.30,000/- towards settlement and the complainant stated that O.P has to pay remaining amount of Rs.45,000/- apart from Rs.25,000/- for getting car repair towards conveyance.
10. It is worth to note that, despite service of notice O.P remained absent and failed to answer the claim made by the complainant, hence the allegation of the complainant remained unchallenged. On the basis of material evidence on record it is established that due to the negligent act of the O.P the car met with an accident and unnecessarily it made the complainant to suffer. As per the saying of the complainant she had incurred expenditure of Rs.75,000/- but the insurance settled for Rs.30,000/- only. Under the circumstances, it is the duty of the service provider to take care of the articles which were entrusted to them as a trustee, but the O.P failed in its duty and hence it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. Under the circumstances, we have no hesitation to direct the O.P to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant along with cost of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which O.P has to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.45,000/- from the date of complaint till its realization and it will meets the ends of justice. Accordingly we answered the point No.(A) in the affirmative and Point No.(B) in the partly affirmative..
POINT No. (C):
11. On the basis of answering the Points (A) & (B), in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is allowed in part with cost.
- Further O.P i.e. GI Cargo Movers represented by its Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant failing which O.P has to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.45,000/- from the date of complaint till its realization.
- Further O.P. is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
- The O.P is hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 28th Day of December 2017)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
*RAK
