IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: THIRU.K. BASKARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
TMT.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI MEMBER
F.A.No.181/2014
[Against the order passed in C.C.No.25/2013, dated 10.10.2012 on the file of the District Forum, Coimbatore]
MONDAY, THE 5th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019.
- Sagara Domestic & International
Packers & Movers P. Ltd.,
Rep. by its General Manager,
No.15, 8th Street,
H.Siddhaya Road,
Annipura Main Road,
Bangalore – 560 027.
- Sagara Domestic & International
Packers & Movers P. Ltd.,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
No.12/294, Mettupalayam Road,
Vellakkinar Pirivu,
Coimbatore – 641 029.::Appellants /opposite parties.
Vs.
Karuppusamy,
S/o.Kalimuthu,
Koolachinnampatti,
Kariyampatti Post,
Kallimandhaiyam (Via),
Palani Taluk, Dindugal. :: Respondent/ Complainant
For Appellants /opposite parties : M/s.V.Manisekaran.
For Respondent/ complainant : M/s.T.Sellakumar.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 21.12.2018 and on hearing the arguments of both and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI, MEMBER
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants /opposite parties under section 15 read with section 17 (1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore (in short District Forum) in C.C.No.25/2013.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are referred to here as they stood arrayed in the District Forum.
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is as follows;-
This complaint filed alleging deficiency of service by the opposite party in delivering the consignment entrusted to them on 30.09.2012 belatedly on 02.12.2012 in a damaged condition. Out of the 57 items booked, 13 items were completely damages, 7 items were partially damaged and 3 items were missing. The complainant valued the total loss of goods at Rs.1,50,000/- and stated that when said amount demanded to the opposite party, they said only Rs.25,000/- by way of cheque. Hence, the complaint was filed claiming Rs.1,50,000/- as damages and Rs.2 lakhs compensation for mental agony and hardship.
The opposite party filed version stating that the delay in delivery of goods occurred only due to the request made by the complainant to keep the consignment in their godown and to deliver it at a later point of time. The opposite party admitted the issuance of cheque for Rs.25,000/- but stated that the same was obtained by the complainant in police station towards full satisfaction for the damaged goods. They sought for dismissal of the complaint.
The learned District Forum after hearing both side and perusing the materials on records framed 2 points for consideration as to whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and whether the complainant was entitled to compensation, partly allowed the complaint holding that the opposite parties were negligent in transporting the consignment of the complainant and awarded Rs.50,000/- towards cost of the materials and Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused.
Aggrieved by the above the opposite parties had preferred this appeal.
4. Point for Consideration :-
1) Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Whether the appeal has to be allowed on the grounds raised by the opposite parties?
5. Before the learned District Forum, the complainant had filed the proof affidavit and exhibits Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. On the side of the opposite parties, the proof affidavit was filed and document Ex.B1 was marked.
6. Point:- Admitted facts are as follows;
(a) that the complainant was sent through the opposite parties from Karnaul to Tamilnadu to the complainant’s residence and Rs.38,330/- was paid towards charges;
(b) that the consignment was booked on 30.09.2012 but delivered only on 01.12.2012 belatedly at the complainant’s place;
(c) that out of the total number of items sent, 13 items were totally damaged, 7 partially damaged and 3 items were missing;
(d) that though complainant claimed Rs.1,50,000/- towards damage and loss of goods, the opposite party had given a cheque for Rs.25,000/-;
(e) that as the complainant was not satisfied with the payment of Rs.25,000/-, the complaint was filed;
7. On admitted facts it is seen that the opposite parties failed to take proper case of the consignment transported. The counsel for opposite parties argued that the complainant had failed to prove that the value of damaged goods was Rs.1,50,000/- and after receiving the cheque for Rs.25,000/- the complainant was not justified in claiing a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. The learned District Forum has arrived at a finding of fact based upon the photographs of the damaged items (Ex.A8 to Ex.A10) which clearly showed the damage caused to the items. It is not necessary for the complainant to produce photographs of goods which are not transported by the opposite parties. Hence, we are of the view that the finding as to damage to the goods is acceptable. In such circumstances when according to the complainant the value of damaged and lost goods amounted to Rs.1,50,000/-, the payment made by the opposite parties for Rs.25,000/- will not be a proper and just compensation. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the loss assessed by the learned District Forum ot the tune of Rs.50,000/- inspite of complainant having claimed Rs.1.5 lakhs does not call for interference. When it is amply proved that the opposite parties are held guilty of deficiency in service in not taking proper care of the goods entrusted to them. With regard to the award of compensation of Rs.25,000/- by the learned District Forum, the same is proper for the mental agony and hardship suffered due to the deficient act of the opposite parties resulting in damage to the goods. Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.
8. Point No.2:- As point No.1 is answered in favour of the complainant the appeal is liable to be dismissed. But with no cost and this point is answered in the negative.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order dated 10.10.2013 of the learned District Forum, Coimbatore made in C.C.No.25/2013. No order as to costs.
S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI K. BASKARAN,
MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
INDEX; - Yes/No
Bsd/e/LM/Orders
