Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

72/2012

Sharmilee Nielsen - Complainant(s)

Versus

Leo Packers and Movers P Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Mohammed Fayaz Ali

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

   Date of Filing :   08.03.2012

                                                                      Date of Order :   04.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM,CHENNAI(SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.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.72/2012

TUESDAY THIS  4^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

Mrs. Sharmilee Nielsen,

3/668A Water Land Drive,

Off Baywatch Bouleward,

Kottivakkam,

Chennai.                                                                     ..Complainant

                                              ..Vs..

Leo Packers and Movers,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Plot No.56, III East Street,

Kamraj Nagar,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai 600 041.                                              ..Opposite party.    

 

 

For the Complainant                :    M/s. Mohammed Fayaz Ali

For the opposite party             :    M/s. R. Elango  

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.1,44,750/- towards damages  and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service  and Rs.25,000/- as costs of the complaint.  

ORDER

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

 

The complainant submit that  he has engaged the opposite party for storage  and   transporting the house hold goods from the complainant’s  previous residence to her new residence situated at Kotivakkam, Chennai.   Accordingly some of the packing of the said goods were already made by the complainant herself by engaging another packers and some of the goods were packed by the opposite party  itself and was taken delivery from the complainant’s previous place to the storage place after keeping the goods with their storage, the opposite party has delivered the goods on 13.08.2011 at the new residence of the complainant.  The complainant was charged by the opposite party for the said storing  and transporting of goods a sum of Rs.78,313/-.  The said goods were taken inventory and the list were prepared by the opposite party at the time of loading.    For the risk coverage a separate charges was made as per the invoice and necessary document also been given by the opposite party to the complainant, covering insurance for the declared value of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the same a sum of Rs.30,000/- was charged was collected by the opposite party.    The complainant further states that  the said goods delivered to the designation i.e the new residence of the complainant on 13.08.2011, when the said goods were unpacked  in the presence of the opposite party’s personnel, it was found that most of the goods were damaged, cracked and destroyed behind restoration.  The list of the same were also prepared and handed over to the opposite party’s personnel on the same day.  Thereafter complainant has conducted a survey of the goods by engaging the service of the M/s. Convenant Assessors Private Ltd., a private surveyor and upon inspection it was found that the goods were destroyed due to improper packing, jerks during the road transit and mishandling while loading and  unloading and the damages were estimated at Rs.1,44,750/- under a surveyor report dated 24.08.2011.    Despite of  request and demand made by the complainant the opposite party neither attended the inspection of the goods nor settled the claim as per the insurance charges collected by the opposite party.  The said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service which caused suffering of mental agony and  hardship to the complainant.  As such the complainant sought for a sum of Rs.1,44,750/- towards damages  and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.25,000/- as costs of the complaint. 

Written Version of opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

2.     The opposite party denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite party submit that the complainant’s packing of the goods  are not proper and hence the opposite party asked the permission from the complainant since the entire packing are in loose and are not in proper.   The complainant assured the opposite party that there will not be any damage for it.  The opposite party requested the complainant that their packing will be air tight and they will do special packing with their own materials even it is glass or other easily breaking materials.  The opposite party also informed that they had insurance for their own packing’s also.   In spite of the requests of the opposite party to the complainant, she refused to allow the opposite party to have their own packings of the complainant’s articles.  The complainant has not followed the instruction for packing of articles from the opposite party  and hence they are not liable for its damages.    The opposite party is not liable to pay the damages as mentioned in the complaint and the damage of Rs.1,44,750/- under the Survey report  dated 24.8.2011.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of  opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked on the side of the opposite party. 

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1.   Whether the opposite party had committed  deficiency of

 service as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.   Whether the complainant is  entitled for the relief sought for

in the complaint?  If so to what extent ?

 

 

5.    POINTS 1 and 2 :

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opposite party and the proof affidavit filed by complainant and opposite party, the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 filed on the side of the complainant and the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 filed on the side of opposite party and considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and for the opposite party.

6.     There is no dispute that the complainant has engaged the opposite party for storage  and   transporting the house hold goods from the complainant’s  previous residence to her new residence situated at Kotivakkam, Chennai.  Admittedly some of the packing of the said goods were already made by the complainant herself by engaging another packers and some of the goods were packed by the opposite party  itself and was taken delivery from the complainant’s previous place to the storage place after keeping the goods with their storage, the opposite party has delivered the goods on 13.08.2011 at the new residence of the complainant. The complainant was charged by the opposite party for the said storing  and transporting of goods a sum of Rs.78,313/- as per receipt Ex.A3. The opposite party also given invoice Ex.A2  for the said amount mentioning packing charges, transporting charges, unloading and unpacking charges, rental charges and insurance charges.  The said goods were taken inventory and the list were prepared by the opposite party at the time of loading, that inventory list was filed as Ex.A4.  For the risk coverage a separate charges was made as per the invoice and necessary document Ex.A1 also been given by the opposite party to the complainant, covering insurance for the declared value of Rs.10,00,000/- towards the same a sum of Rs.30,000/- was charged was collected by the opposite party for the above said invoice Ex.A2.

7.     The complainant has raised grievance in this complaint that the said goods delivered to the designation i.e the new residence of the complainant on 13.08.2011, when the said goods were unpacked  in the presence of the opposite party’s personnel, it was found that most of the goods were damaged, cracked and destroyed behind restoration. The list of the same were also prepared and handed over to the opposite party’s personnel on the same day.  Thereafter complainant has conducted a survey of the goods by engaging the service of the M/s. Convenant Assessors Private Ltd., a private surveyors and upon inspection it was found that the goods were destroyed due to improper packing, jerks during the road transit and mishandling while loading and  unloading and the damages were estimated at Rs.1,44,750/- under a surveyor report dated 24.08.2011.    Despite of  request and demand made by the complainant the opposite party neither attended the inspection of the goods nor settle the claim as per the insurance charges collected by the opposite party.  The said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service which caused suffering of mental agony and  hardship to the complainant  and complainant filed this complaint claiming the reimbursement of the said amount of value of the damaged goods with compensation  of Rs.1,00,000/- against the opposite party.

8.     Whereas the opposite party has resisted the complaint that some of the goods were loosely packed by the complainant herself by engaging another packers due to the same some of the household goods transported would have damaged but the opposite party denies that the damage of goods were not caused to the extent of Rs.1,44,750/-, the surveyor report mentioned value is not proper and not according to the standard and the opposite party has got vast experience in the packing and transporting the goods and the said goods transported within Chennai that too to the distance  of 12 k.m. with well formed road facilities the damages alleged by the complainant would have not been caused by mishandling and jerking of the vehicle in transit which are not possible.  However the opposite party has already informed  to the complainant by e.mail is ready to settle / offered a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards the claim of the complainant.  Complainant without accepting the same, filing this complaint in order to claim huge amount under unreasonable grounds is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9.     However considering the exchange of communication between the complainant and the opposite party  it reveals that as submitted by the complainant, the opposite party despite of informed about the damages, the opposite party have not made any proper attempt to inspect the damaged goods and to settle the claim made by the complainant is acceptable.  Without making such proper attempt even to verify the damages, after receipt of the claim made by the complainant with necessary proof for damages i.e surveyor report and the photographs of the damaged goods etc., the opposite party has made unreasonable attempt by offering a sum of Rs.20,000/- which is very meager amount when compared with the value of the damaged goods, as full and final settlement cannot be acceptable.  The reason stated by the opposite party that the surveyor report and the value mentioned thereon cannot be acceptable as it is not properly assessed and  valued, is also not acceptable, since, the opposite party without taking any steps to value the damaged  goods on their own.   The alleged offer said to have been made by the opposite party, towards the claim of the complainant cannot be justifiable and reasonable.  Further as stated by the opposite party  that some of the goods were already packed by the complainant by engaging other packers,  but it is not proved on the side of opposite party that the said packing are not made properly and were loosely packed.  It is also pertinent to mention that there is no dispute that some of the goods transported were packed by opposite

party’s personnel themselves  and necessary charges were also made and collected as mentioned in the Ex.A2 invoice.  Therefore, the opposite party’s contention that some of the goods were loosely packed by complainant himself by engaging other packers which is the cause for the damage of goods cannot be acceptable.

10.    Further the opposite party has charged a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards risk of damages and has collected as per the Ex.A2 invoice and also issued a separate document for risk coverage as per the  Ex.A1 covering the risk of damages for the declared value of Rs.10,00,000/-   Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view for the damage of the goods the opposite party is responsible since it was entrusted to the opposite party  and paying necessary charges by the complainant, for packing, unloading and unpacking, rent for storing, transporting and with  coverage of and damages.  Further since the said damage of the goods were valued by the  approved survey agency and assessed and valued for Rs. 1,44,750/- and there is no contrary evidence on the part of opposite party to disprove the said surveyor report and the value thereon, the opposite party is liable to settle the claim of the complainant for Rs.1,44,750/-  as the opposite party is responsible for the said damage  of goods and also liable as  per the EX.A1 insurance charges collected from the complainant.  So refusal to settle the claim on unreasonable ground amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant is also acceptable.  Therefore we are of the considered view, the opposite party is to be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,44,750/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of the claim made by the complainant to the opposite party i.e 17.10.2011 to till the date of payment.  Since interest for the said amount is ordered we are not inclined to impose compensation claimed against the opposite party.  Further  the opposite party is also directed  to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  Accordingly the points 1 and 2 are answered.

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,44,750/- (Rupees One lakh forty four thousand seven hundred and fifty only)  with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 17.10.2011 to till the date of payment and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as costs to the complainant, within six weeks from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  4^th    day  of  October   2016.

 

 

MEMBER-I                    MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1-  27.5.2011     - Copy of Insurance Policy.

Ex.A2- 27.5.2011      - Copy of Bill

Ex.A3- 1.6.2011        - Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party.

Ex.A4-           -        -        - Copy of check list of the items transported and insured by the

                               Opposite party

 

Ex.A5- 24.8.2011      - Copy of Surveyor’s report.

 

Ex.A6-                    -        - Photographs of the damaged goods.

 

Ex.A7- 20.9.2011      - Copy of email sent by the complainant to the opposite party.

 

Ex.A8- 21.9.2011      - Copy of reply sent by the opposite party.

 

Ex.A9- 17.10.2011     - Copy of email sent by the complainant with survey report.

 

Ex.A10- 17.11.2011

            21.11.2011  - Copy of email sent by the complainant calling upon the opposite

                               Party to settle the claim.

 

Ex.A11- 21.11.2011   - Copy of email sent by the opposite party to the complainant.

 

Ex.A12- 21.11.2011   - Copy of reply sent by the complainant.

 

Ex.A13- 4.1.2012      - Copy of email sent by the opposite party to the complainant.

 

Ex.A14- 18.1.2012     - Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant.

 

Ex.A15-         -        - Copy of Postal Ack. card.

 

                    

Opposite parties’ side documents: -    

 

Ex.B1- 7.1.1998        - Copy of letter of appreciation.

Ex.B2- 13.9.2002      - Copy of letter of appreciation.

Ex.B3- 6.5.2003        - Copy of letter of appreciation.

Ex.B4- 19.8.2007      - Copy of letter of appreciation.

 

MEMBER-I                    MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.