Orissa

Rayagada

CC/55/2021

Harendra singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Interm Road Carrier Aunit of Interim Movers & Packers - Opp.Party(s)

Sri N K Kanta

15 Nov 2021

ORDER

          DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

 

C.C.CASE  NO.55/2021                                                        Date.  11.11. 2021.

 

P R E S E N T .

 

Sri   Gopal   Krishna   Rath,                                               President.

Smt.Padmalaya  Mishra,.                                                 Member

 

Sri Harendra Singh,  S/O: Late Rajendra Prasad Singh,  Chief  Manager(Civil), J.K.Paper mill, Dist: Rayagada.                                                                                                                                                                                           …Complainant.

Versus.

 

1. Interim Road Carrier, (A unit of Interm Movers & Packers), 8/248, Satyam Compound, Near Air Force station, N.H. No.8,  Dargipura,  Vodadara(Gujarat).
2. Sri Rajesh Dulichand, Amizara Bunglow, Near  Badri   Narayan Mandir, Adajan, Surat,(Gujarat), 395009.
3. The  Branch Manager, Central Bank of India,

Manthan Building, Ground floor, Near Gujarat Gas Circle, Muktananda Nagar,

, Adajan, Surat,(Gujarat), 395009                                          … Opposite parties

 

 

 

For the Complainant:- Sri  N.K.Kanta, and associates.

For the  O.Ps:- Set  exparte.

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non receipt of  claim a  sum  of  Rs.  2  Lakhs  towards   damage of  household  goods  in  transit   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the commission nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  6 months  has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 6 months  for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  the  counsel for the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps. set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. 

Heard from the  learned  counsel  for the  complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.

                                                Findings.

Undisputedly  the complainant had booked house hold items from Songadh  Gujarat   State   to   J.K.Pur , Rayagada District,  Odisha  on Dt. 07.02.2021  at  Songadh, Gujarat  State   through  the  O.Ps  1 & 2   transport (copies of the  consignment  Note No. 221  Dt.8.2.2021   and  list of house hold items  price  fixed  for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-  are available in the  file which are marked as Annexure- I & 2). Further the  complainant had also paid  an amount  of Rs.69,300/- towards  transport charges  to the  O.P  in shape  of bank  account transfer  (copies of the  bill  No. 232  Dt. 8.2.2021 is  available  in the file which  is marked as Annexure – 3   where in the  above   house  hold items were  insured   &  Insured  declared  value  was Rs. 2 lakhs  and the complainant had  also  paid  Rs.6,000.00  towards  insurance  charges).

The main grievance of the complainant  was that   the  house hold  goods     reached at destination    J.K.Pur,  Rayagada  District   in damaged condition.  But till date   the complainant  has not   received   insured  amount Rs. 2 lakhs from the   O.Ps  1 & 2  therefore   the  complainant  has filed    this  C.C. case before this District Commission   to get   Rs.2 Lakhs  towards  damaged  house  hold goods  from the O.Ps .   Hence this C.C. case.

The OPs despite receiving notice from this Commission  are failed to render service to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. as provisions laid down in Sec.2 (1)(d) of the Act.

During the course of exparte hearing the complainant  put forth the required papers  before this District  Commission  and  marked  as Annexures.

After carefully examining the evidence on record, we find no cogent reason  to disbelieve or discard the evidence already adduced by the complainant. The documentary evidence  tendered by the complainant clearly tends support and absolute corroboration   to  the evidence.  

In absence of any rebuttal materials from the side  of   O.Ps  there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence put forth  by the  complainant  before the commission   whose evidence  suffers from no infirmity. The evidence adduced by the complainant  clearly leads us to arrive at a just conclusion that there is not only deficiency  in service  but also negligence  on the part of the O.Ps as per the  provisions laid down under section -39  of the  C.P. Act, 2019

On careful analysis   of the evidence on record both oral and documentary, we are clearly of the opinion  that  inspite of doing the needful, the O.Ps are failed to redress the deficiency in service and as a result the complainant was constrained  to file this complaint before the District  Commission  claiming the relief as sought for.  In that view  of the matter the O.Ps  1  & 2 are jointly and severally liable.

              We observed  after booking  the complainant had contacted to the O.Ps from time to time over phone but no action has been taken by the said O.Ps in ensuring to pay  the damage claim  of household Goods. Not responding to the grievance of a genuine consumer amounts to deficiency in service and in that line we hold that the O.Ps  1 & 2  are jointly and severally liable. 

.           Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                            ORDER.

In the result with these observations, findings  the complaint petition is allowed in part  on exparte against  the O.Ps 1 & 2  and dismissed  against  the  O.P. No.3 (Bank).

            The O.Ps. 1 & 2  are  ordered to  pay  Rs.2,00,000.00 (Rupees  two lakhs)only  to the  complainant   towards  damaged  of  household  goods  during  transit   along with  interest  @ Rs. 9% per annum  from the date of filing  i.e. Dt.9.3.2021 till  realization.

The  O.Ps  1  & 2  are ordered to pay compensation  jointly and severally a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for negligence and deficiency in service  and for mental  agony, harassment  and further  to  pay Rs.4,000/- towards  litigation  expenses.

            We therefore issued a “Cease and Desist” order against the O.P. directing  him to stop such a practice  forthwith and not to repeat in future. 

            The O.Ps are  ordered to comply the above direction within one month from the date of  receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty  to take further  proceedings U/S- 71 & 72  of the C.P. Act, 2019. Service the copies of the order to the parties.

Dictated and corrected by me

Pronounced on this        11^th.         . day   of  November,   2021.

 

MEMBER.                                                        PRESIDENT