Delhi

StateCommission

FA/1001/2013

SOUTH (1) PACKERS & MOVERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

K. PURSHOTTAMM & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

21 May 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision:21.05

.2018

 

 

First Appeal- 1001/2013

(Arising out of the order dated 30.07.2013 passed in Complainant Case No. 1362/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi)

 

 

M/s. South (I) Packer & Movers,

Bansal Apartments, Ist Floor,

Tel Mill Marg, Ram Nagar,

Paharganj Marg, New Delhi-110055.

(Through M.K. Goyal, Prrespondent .)

…..Appellant

 

 

Versus

 

1.       Shri K. Purshothaman,

          S/o Late Shri R. Krishnan,

          F-101/5, Dilshad Colony,

          New Delhi-110 095.

 

 

2.       M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          N-61, Ist Floor, Gobind Mansion,

          Indirapalace, Connaught Place,

          New Delhi-110 001.

.….Respondents

 

 

 

First Appeal- 56/2015

 

 

Shri K. Purshothaman,

S/o Late Shri R. Krishnan,

Saranya, Peringammala, Kalliyoor,

P.O., Trivendrum, Pin-695042.

 

Previously at:

F-101/5, Dilshad Colony,

New Delhi-110095.

…..Appellant

 

Versus

 

1.       M/s. South (I) Packer & Movers,

Bansal Apartments, Ist Floor,

Tel Mill Marg, Ram Nagar,

Paharganj Marg, New Delhi-110055.

(Through M.K. Goyal, Prrespondent .)

 

2.       M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

          N-61, Ist Floor, Gobind Mansion,

          Indirapalace, Connaught Place,

          New Delhi-110001.

.….Respondents

 

 

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

 

 

1.      Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. Both these appeals arise out of one order dated 30.7.2013 passed in CC No.1362/08 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi (in short, “the District Forum”) as such are taken up together.
2. Appeal No.1001/2013 is filed by the respondent No.1 i.e. South (I) Packers & Movers and appeal No.56/15 has been filed by the Shri K. Purshothaman i.e. complainant.  By the aforesaid order, the Ld. District Forum has given following directions to respondent :

 

“The respondent -1 is unable to rebut this allegation.  After considering the photographs of the broken furniture, the RESPONDENT -1 cannot escape its responsibility for failure to take care of the goods entrusted to it for its safe passage.  Holding it guilty of deficiency we direct RESPONDENT -1 to pay the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-.  We also award compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for harassment, deficiency and litigation expenses.”

 

 

3. For the sake of convenience the parties are hereinafter referred as arrayed in the complaint.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant hired the services of respondent No.1 for transporting his household articles from Delhi to Trivandrum as per Consignment Note No.0188 dated 28.08.2006.  As per agreed terms and conditions of the transaction, respondent No.1 agreed to deliver the goods at Trivandrum in good condition and without any damages.  The complainant paid requisite charges of Rs.31,930/- to respondent No.1 for transporting and delivering the goods which included risk charge also.
5. The respondent No.1 also agreed to deliver the articles at the house of complainant at Trivandrum in good condition.  The articles were also insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. respondent No.2.  It was alleged that during the course of transit, the respondent No.1 changed the vehicle carrying the articles and for that purpose, respondent No.1 had unloaded the articles three times. It was alleged that same was against the terms and conditions of assigning the consignment. It was alleged that at that time of loading and unloading, various household articles were damaged.  It was alleged that furniture and mattresses in the above consignment were brand new items. It was alleged that furniture was made out of seasam, teak and other like costly wood available in North India.  The goods were delivered on 13.09.2006 but the same were damaged.  It was alleged that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1 as the consignment was damaged due to carelessness on its part.  The complainant had alleged that the estimate damage caused to him was Rs.1,50,000/-.  He had also claimed damages of Rs.1,50,000/- for causing mental pain. In all a claim of Rs.3 lacs was filed before the District Forum with interest @ 24% per annum.
6. The complaint was contested by respondent No.1 i.e. the consignor wherein it was admitted that the complainant had hired its services for transporting household goods from Delhi to Trivandrum as per the consignment note dated 28.08.2006.  It was alleged that the respondent No.1 had delivered 31 items as per list of goods at Trivandrum in good condition and without any damage and had also taken the signatures on the back of Delivery Note.  It was alleged that a frivolous complaint was filed.  It was alleged that goods were also insured with respondent No.2 i.e. United Insurance Co. Ltd., as such the respondent No.1 was not liable to pay any amount.  It was admitted that the complainant had sent a letter dated 29.09.2006 wherein the damages to his old household goods to the tune of Rs.50,000/- was claimed.  It was alleged that complainant had malafidely enhanced the demand and is not entitled for any amount.
7. A separate written statement was filed by respondent No.2 wherein it was stated that the claim was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy as such respondent No.2 was not liable for any amount.
8. Both the parties had filed evidence in the form of affidavits.  After hearing the parties, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint and directed respondent No.1 to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as value of the broken furniture and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for harassment, deficiency and litigation expenses.
9. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, both the parties have filed the said appeal.
10. Ld. Counsel for respondent No.1 has argued that the complainant had accepted delivery of 31 old goods and furniture at Trivandrum without any protest/complaint.  Ld. Counsel has relied upon the delivery receipt note dated 28.08.2006. It is contended that since the goods were delivered in perfect condition as such the claim was filed mainly to extract money from respondent No.1. It is contended that after the delivery of goods, complainant had written for the first time a letter dated 19.09.2006 alleging major damage in respect of 6 household articles. It is submitted that even a legal notice dated 29.9.06, the complainant stated that the loss calculated by him for the damaged items was Rs.50,000/- and demanded aforesaid amount from the respondent No.1. It is alleged that with the passage of time, the complainant kept on enhancing the amount towards damages. Earlier complainant had filed a complaint case No.94/2007 wherein the claim was made for an amount of Rs.2 lacs i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- towards damaged items and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.  It is alleged that the said complaint was dismissed in default. Thereafter again complaint was filed i.e. CC No.1362/08 wherein impugned order has been passed.  In the said case, claim amount has been enhanced to Rs.3 lacs i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- towards damages caused to the consignment and Rs.1,50,000/- for having caused mental pain and agony to the complainant. Ld. Counsel submits that the complainant had deliberately enhanced the amount and the District Forum has ignored the material evidence on record.  It is contended that the District Forum has relied upon report of surveyor appointed by respondent No.2 i.e. insurance company in considering the loss of furniture.  It is contended that the said report is not reliable to piece of evidence as the rates of similar furniture have not been placed on record.
11. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that the replacement value of the goods was Rs.1,50,000/- in 2006 and the matter was decided on 30.07.2013.  It is contended that no interest has been awarded for the intervening period.  It is contended that interest @ 24% ought to have been awarded on the awarded amount.  It is contended that District Forum has rightly taken into consideration the report of surveyor and awarded compensation. 
12. We have considered the submissions made by the parties and perused the material on record.
13. It is admitted position that the complainant had engaged the services of respondent No.1 for transporting the household goods from New Delhi to Trivandrum on 28.08.2006 vide consignment Note No.0188 dated 28.08.2006. It is also admitted position that respondent No.1 had delivered the goods at Trivandrum address on 13.09.2006.  It is also not disputed that the some of the items were damaged.
14. Complainant for the first time wrote a letter on 19.9.06 to insurance company stating the damage as under:

 

“I, Mrs. Sulieha Purushothaman, on behalf of my husband Shri K. Purushothaman, inform that M/s. South (I) Packers & Movers was engaged to transport the household items/goods from New Delhi to Trivandrum on 28.8.2006 vide their Consignment Note No.0188 dated 28.8.2006 and delivered the same at Trivandrum (Address: Saradavilasm, Peringammala, Kalliyoor. P.O. Trivandrum-42) on 13.9.2006 with damages of almost all items.  The consignment was insured vide policy mentioned above (crespondent y enclosed).  Briefly the items which have major damages are given below:

 

(1)Dressing Table	Damaged/broken its various parts
(2)Dining Table	One leg of a dining chair is completely broken into two parts and the table frame on which the glass fixed, is having scratches/damages on various places.
	One leg of a single seat sofa is completely broken and the place where the leg is fixed is also having crack/damage.
(4)Rockey Chair	One of its wooden stand on which the chair is moving is broken into two parts and the other is semi broken.
	Damaged severely at various places.
(6)T.V. stand	Damaged on trespondent .

 

You are therefore requested to kindly arrange an on-site inspection by your representative at the place where the said items were delivered by M/s. South (I) Packers & Movers, New Delhi (at the address given in para 1) at the earliest with prior intimation to my brother Mr. S.S. Sasidharan (Tel No.0471-2404099) and settlement in this regard may kindly be arranged early.”

 

 

15. On 29.09.2006 complainant had sent a letter to respondent  No.1 wherein it is stated that he had calculated the loss for the damaged items and it comes to Rs.50,000/- and had claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- from respondent No.1.  It was further mentioned in the said notice that if the aforesaid amount was not given, the complainant would approach the District Forum.  Thereafter, the first complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum i.e. CC No.94/07 wherein a total claim of Rs.2 lac was made by the complainant i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- towards damage caused to the consignment and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.  The said complaint was dismissed in default.
16. Again the second complaint was filed on 01.10.2008 where claim has been raised to Rs.3 lacs.  While deciding the present complaint, the District Forum has ignored the letters dated 19.09.2006 and 29.09.2006 discussed above while coming to the finding towards assessment of loss.  No reason is given in the complaint filed in the year 2008 i.e. CC No.1362/2008 as to how the amount towards assessment of loss was enhanced.   The complainant has stated that at the time of issuing letter 29.09.2006, the complainant could not calculate the extent of damages and claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation.  The reasoning given is not believable.  The articles which were damages were belonging to complainant. It can’t be said that he could not calculate the extent of damages for his own goods. Further, no details have been given as to how he could not calculate the extent of damages while sending letter dated 29.09.2006.  The plea taken is an afterthought.
17. Further the report of surveyor appointed by insurance company i.e. respondent No.2 assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- cannot be acted upon.  Reading the said report, it is seen that the survey was conducted on 22.10.2006 and 23.10.2006 whereas the report is dated 04.10.2006.  No explanation for the same has come on record.  Further as per surveyor report, the replacement value of the goods have been assessed at Rs.1,50,000/- on the basis of price of the same types of items available in the local market.  No material is discussed in the report in this regard. No affidavit of surveyor is also filed. In these circumstances, the surveyor report is not reliable one and the District Forum ought not have considered the same ignoring other material on record i.e. loss assessed by the complainant himself vide letter dated 25.09.2006.  It has also come on record that some of the damages articles were also old.    
18. In view of above discussion, we find that Ld. District Forum has committed error in assessing the loss of goods/furniture at Rs.1,50,000/- considering the evidence on record, loss caused to complainant is Rs.,50,000/- as is evident from letter dated 29.09.2006
19. As regards the contention of complainant for grant of interest, we find that the District Forum has already awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation.  Since the adequate compensation is awarded, we find no reason to award interest.
20. Accordingly, we partly  accept the appeal of respondent No.1 i.e. FA No.1001/2013 and reduce the assessed loss from Rs.1,50,000/- to 50,000/- as was originally claimed by the complainant.  The compensation amount as awarded by the District Forum is upheld. The appeal filed by complainant for awarding interest stands dismissed.
21. Both appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
22. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge.  The record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith.  Thereafter the file be consigned to record room.

 

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

•  

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

Tri