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

DATED 28^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

ORDER

SMT. SUMA ANILKUMAR, MEMBER

The complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, complainant seeking direction towards OP for the following reliefs:-

1. To pay compensation of Rs.14,300/- for the missing bed mattress mentioned at Package No.5 along with interest @ 24% p.a.
2. Pay compensation of Rs.5,310/- for the missing 6 dining table glasses mentioned at Package No.6 along with interest @ 24% p.a.
3. Pay compensation of Rs.2,500/- for missing parts of the bed mentioned at Package No.11 along with interest @ 24% p.a.
4. Pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- for 2 big plants with pots of rubber tree and Christmas tree plants mentioned at Package No.61 and 2 along with interest @ interest @ 24% p.a.
5. Pay compensation of Rs.62,031/- towards cost of the 55” QLED Hisense Television which the display has been damaged, mentioned at Package No.59 along with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of packing till the date of realization.
6. Pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony, trauma, hardships suffered by the complainant and his wife due to the deficiency in service of the OP.
7. Pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the expenses incurred by the complainant towards prosecution of the present complaint.
8. Such other relief as this Hon’ble forum demms fit in the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

The complainant states that he along with his wife, for the purpose of employment, shifted from Gurugram to Bangalore in the month of April 2023. The OP Company is a logistics company engaged in the business of transporting household items, cars, bikes, warehouse etc. They claim to have great reputation in the market of logistics in the country and also claim to have about 15 million consumers every month. The complainant had availed the services of the OP to transport their terms which included household items, Maruti Celerio (CAR) and a TVS Jupiter 125 (BIKE). The complainant states that he handed over his bike on 4^th April 2023 vide consignment Note No:200230 and the car on 6^th April 2023 vide consignment Note No:200236 to be sent to his wife’s address in Bangalore and along with the car they also handed over all of their household items vide Consignment No:200236 on 6^th April 2023.

3. The complainant further states that it was understood that the items which were sent by the complainant were t be kept in warehouse for a few days in safe custody till the complainant and his wife found a rental home to stay in Bangalore. The complainant also in order not to incur any loss due to any negligence or any unforeseen circumstances also took a transit insurance for a newly purchased television. However despite repeated requests and several follow up calls and messages by the complainant, the transit insurance was not provided by the OP logistics company.

4. The above transport of the said goods and for the storage in a warehouse the OP logistics company had issued an invoice dated 18.04.2023 for a total sum of Rs.61,474/- including taxes. The invoice was sent by the OP company to the complainant on 18^th April on whatsapp. A total of Rs.50,000/- was paid by the complainant to the OP company while the goods were in transit and it was agreed that the remaining amount would be paid when the goods were again received by them in Bangalore in same condition as when it was given. The said car and bike were received and collected by the complainant within two weeks in Bangalore and they were in good condition with no damage being caused in the transport. On finalizing the rental agreement, the complainant requested the OP logistics company to deliver his household items by 28^th April 2023. However the OP logistics Company delayed the delivery of goods/vehicles and was only able to deliver it on 1^st May 2023 by one Mr. Hisar, an employee at the OP logistics company.

5. When the delivery of the items was being received by the complainant, he noticed that a few of the items were missing and few were damaged which are admitted in the Packing List of the Consignment No.236. The following is the list of missing items:

a) Package No.5: One 6’x6’ Mattress.

b) Package No.6: One 6-seater Dining Table Glass

c) Package No.11: Bed Parts (Dismantled)

d) Package No.61,62,62: 2 big plants with plots of rubber tree and Christmas tree plants.

6. To his utter shock, the complainant on opening package NO.59 which was a newly purchased was 55” QLED Hisense Television and switching it on two days after the delivery, it was observed that the display was internally damaged. A view of the same was sent to the OP logistics company. The complainant has continuously followed up with the employees of the OP Logistics company, but to his dismay he has not received any proper response and no action has been taken by the said company to resolve the issue of damaged TV and missing articles. Complainant then directly contacted the Director of OP Logistics company – one Mr. Amt Dahiya regarding his grievance about his newly purchased Television set which was damaged during transit. Mr. Amit Dahiya in turn responded stating that the TV Transit Insurance has expired in 9 days of the delivery of item and admitted that they will pay whatever the cost to be incurred by the complainant to repair the 55” QLED Hisense Television. The complainant was not at all informed about the validity of the insurance of the television being 9 days, and further the insurance policy obtained for the 55” QLED Hisense Television was not provided by the OP logistics company to the complainant even after continuous follow ups by him. Also, due to the said damage of the Television the manufacturing company of the Televison Hisnse, have made their warranty on the said television as void and also informed the complainant that the complainant has to bear the cost of repair or purchase a new Televison all together. The cost of repair incurred will be mentioned on actual cost of repair and the same is awaited from the TV mechanic and will be produced at the appropriate time on receiving it.

7. Due to repeated requests for resolving the issue and compensating the complainant for loss of missing items and damaged TV, the staff of the OP company have stopped responding to the calls and messages of the complainant and one of the employees has even blocked the number of the complainant and his wife. Due to negligence and the inadequate service which was provided by the OP logistics company the complainant and his then pregnant wife have gone through terrible mental and physical agony and stress because of the logistics company. This mental harassment continued for the entire month and has resulted in the wife of the complainant suffering from a premature rpture of membrane which caused premature delivery of the complainant’s child on 10^th June 2023. The doctors mentioned that stress could be one of the major causes of this horrific incident.

8. A legal notice dated 27.06.2023 was issued calling upon the OP No.1 & 2 company to immediately marked the loss of missing articles and damaged TV within 15 days from the date of receipt of this notice to meet the ends of justice and cost of inconvenience caused, disturbance under gone and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his wife from the date of non-delivery of missing items and delivery of damaged TV, and also to compensate the complainant for the mental agony caused. Hence the complaint by the complainant.

9. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

10.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Negative.

Point No.2:- Negative.

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

                      REASONS

11. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

12. The complainant has failed to appear before this commission, since the date of admission hearing i.e. 17.08.2023 and has also failed to file affidavit evidence, documents and arguments. The complainant failed to prove his contention by evidence. The complainant has failed to prove or produce proper evidence to prove that the bed, dining table glass, missing parts of bed, 2 big plants with pots and the display of the 55 inch Q LED high sense telelvision being damaged during the transportation from Gurugram to Bangalore by OP. Hence the complaint is dismissed as there is no proper evidence produced against OP and the complainant fail to prove his contention and has shown negligence by filing the case in this commission and not appearing and not leading his evidences and arguments against the OP. Therefore the complainant has behaved negligently and taken lightly and has wasted the time of this commission by his negligence. Hence the complaint is dismissed.

13. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

                                   ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby dismissed.
2. Complainant is instructed to take the complaint filed by the complainant seriously in near future.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th day of March, 2024)

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

NIL

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

NIL