Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/492/2007

S.Suresh Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Karthick - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

08 Dec 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   16.10.2007

                                                                        Date of Order :   08.12.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.492/2007

FRIDAY THIS 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

S. Suresh Kumar,

C/o. G. Gopalasundaram,

18/13, Ground Floor,

Teachers Colony,

Royapettah,

Chennai 600 014.                                          Complainant

 

                                         Vs 

Karthick,

M/s. Thangam Packers & Movers,

New No.19, old No.6,

Chitrakulam Street,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 41.                                                Opposite party.

 

Counsel for Complainant           :    M/s. Suresh Kumar            

Counsel for opposite party        :    M/s. R.Rajasekaran     

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for damaged articles and to pay Rs.1000/- towards cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  on 21.4.2007 he has parceled his household articles in order to shift his house from Chennai to Bangarpet and paid a sum of Rs.8200/- as freight charges.    The opposite party promised to send six persons to pack and move the articles but only three persons had come and the articles which were to be delivered on 22.4.2007   but delivered on 23.4.2007 while in transit the Pet Dog of the complainant was misplaced by the opposite party.   Several articles i.e. 50% of the articles were damaged conditions.   Even after repeated request and demands the opposite party has not paid any compensation towards the loss of articles and Pet dog.   As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in the Written Version filed by the  opposite party is  as follows:

      The  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite party submit that admittedly the opposite party  doing the business of packaging and carrying of things from one place to another on road.  The complainant has engaged the opposite party to shift the household articles from Door No.21/6 Vaidyalingam Salai, Chitlapakkam, Chennai to Door No.14134155, Shanthi Nagar, Bangarpet, Karnataka State on 21.4.2007 after receipt of freight charges of Rs.8200/-.   Further the opposite party submit that  with regard to the allegation made against the opposite party regarding damage of 50% of articles such as 1) folding table 2) plastic buckets 3) plastic chairs 4) plastic tub 5) steel bureau 6) steel suitcase 7) Fan cups it is earnestly stated that the said items were packed well before movement.  The opposite party submit that  it is under the purview of terms and rules of the opposite party business that they will not carry any animals.   To establish the said fact, no entry or any bill has been raised by the opposite party for the said alleged pet dog carry.      Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and document Ex.A1 to Ex.A8  marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 marked on the side of the opposite party.

4.   The points for the consideration is: 

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for damaged articles and Rs.1000/- as cost  as prayed for?

 

5.  ON POINT:

         Both parties filed their respective written arguments and has not turned up to advance any oral arguments.   Perused the records namely complaint, written version, proof affidavit, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that on 21.4.2007 he has parceled his household articles in order to shift his house from Chennai to Bangarpet and paid a sum of Rs.8200/- as freight charges.    The opposite party promised to send six persons to pack and move the articles but only three persons had come for packing and the articles which were to be delivered on 22.4.2007.   But delivered on 23.4.2007.  while in transit the Pet Dog of the complainant was misplaced by the opposite party.   Equally several articles i.e. 50% of the articles were  damaged conditions when delivered.   Even after repeated request and demands the opposite party has not paid any compensation towards the loss of articles and Pet dog.   Hence the complainant  is constrained to file this case after issue of notice.   The complainant is claiming a compensation of Rs.30,000/-.  But the complainant has not produced any bills towards the cost of the articles damaged.  

6.     The contention of the opposite party is that admittedly the opposite party  doing the business of packaging and carrying of things from one place to another on road.  The complainant has engaged the opposite party to shift the household articles from Door No.21/6 Vaidyalingam Salai, Chitlapakkam, Chennai to Door No.14134155, Shanthi Nagar, Bangarpet, Karnataka State on 21.4.2007 after receipt of freight charges of Rs.8200/-.    The said articles were delivered on 23.4.2007 which is the date fixed. The complainant made allegation that the 50% of the articles were damaged but no list of article given with value. But admittedly some articles were damaged.  The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.30,000/- without any reason and has not produced any bills towards the cost of the articles damaged.   The allegation of missing of Pet dog is a mockery.  The opposite party  never transport any living animals.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards reasonable value of damaged articles with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the point is answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party  shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards reasonable value of damaged articles with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 8^th day  of  December  2017.  

 MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1   21.4.2007   - Copy of cash receipt for Rs.8200/-

Ex.A2  21.4.2007  - Copy of  Declaration form.

Ex.A3  5.5.2007    - Copy of registered letter

Ex.A4  31.5.2007  - Copy of reminder letter to opposite party.

Ex.A5  13.7.2007  - Copy of letter to CAG explaining.

Ex.A6  11.4.2007  - Copy of receipt.

Ex.A7  26.8.2007  - Copy of letter from CAG to opposite party.

Ex.A8  19.8.2007  - Copy of letter from CAG

Opposite party’s side document: -      

Ex.B1  21.4.2007  - Copy of receipt.

Ex.B2  21.4.2007  - Copy of declaration.

Ex.B3  11.4.2007  - Copy of consignment Feed up receipt.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.