This complaint is at the instance of one Mr. Raj Kumar Bagree of Flat no. 201, 2nd floor, New Alipore P-Block, 778/779, Kolkata 700053 who filed complaint petition u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986 against the Opposite parties on the allegation of deficiency of services in a consumer dispute of delivery of materials including transportation.
The gist of the case of the complainant is that the complainant booked materials for transportation through the OP company during June, 2015 from Jaipur to Kolkata for household articles and accordingly the authorised representative of the OP company visited him at Jaipur home on21.06.2015 to inspect the said materials for shifting by transportation. Accordingly a box container truck was decided to be deployed by OP. It was also claimed by the complainant that the said representative promised for packaging withthe goods in specially made plastic containers, furnitures to wrap in corrugated sheets/ plastic, crockery and fragile item in thick layers of newspaper/bubble wrap for complete protection. The representative also promised to pack all the wall paintings, murals, mirrors and glass top items in wooden crates, electronic items in separate wooden crates, coats and saries duly hanged in almirah and packed, books in special bags, religious items with special care and mattresses, properly packed without compromising the quality of packaging materials as per reputation of the packers and movers company of the OP. The complainant being impressed, received a quotation of Rs. 91,692/- which was negotiated for a final amount of Rs. 80,000/- plus insurance charges @3% of assessed value of Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. for Rs. 15,000/- thereby totalling to Rs. 95,000/- out of which complainant paid Rs. 60,000/- by cheque at the time of reporting the truck for loading at Jaipur and the balance amount for Rs. 35,000/- was to be paid in cash at the time of unloading at Kolkata. The date of packing was scheduled on 18-19/07/2015 to reach destination on 24-25/07/2015. Accordingly the complainant booked air ticket for journey on 22.07.2015 to be present to receive the articles by reaching at destination. The amount of Rs. 60,000/- was paid by cheque as promised by the complainant. But the complainant was surprised to note that the OP company did not carry newspapers for packing on the schedule date of packing. The other packaging materials like plastic containers were also deficient in quantity and quality of the cartons and no wooden crate was provided for packaging of the balance materials which were very valuable. In short there was a poor quality and a quantity of materials that were made available for packaging and there was no responsible person for proper supervision which let the complainant to feel that there was a false promise during collection of order but lacked during execution. The personnel packing the goods did their job in a poor manner refusing any suggestion or the interference of the complainant and all the materials were in full shambles leading to a very unprofessional work carried out without application of mind even for making the inventory before dispatch for 167 articles. The complainant locked the box wagon of the container wrap bearing truck no. HR55 P 7919, one set of keys of which was handed over to the truck driver and the other one with himself. The complainant reached the destination on 22.07.2015 when the complainant was informed that the lorry under break down for which there was a delay. After a lot of persuasion and complainant ultimately received an e-mail from OP company representative on 29.07.2015 about reaching the articles on 02.08.2015 and thereafter rescheduled it again on 04.08.2015. Meanwhile the OP company wanted to turn up for collection of the balance amountof Rs. 35,000/-for unloading before the articles gets received by the complainant. The complainant not received the goods and materials pending payment of the outstanding balance of Rs. 35,000/- for which no article could be unloaded. As such, Complainant had to pay the balance amount and was compelled to clear the dues without receiving the materials. On 03.08.2015 the materials were received by the complainant but on opening the door of the container truck the said goods and articles were found damaged to a great extent. The OP company representative intimated the complainant for not opening the box container to enable the insurance company inspect the damaged goods and articles.Thereafter a person claiming as surveyor from OP company appeared on 11.08.2015 and a survey report was prepared. But by an e-mail dated 19.08.2015, the surveyor offered a small amount of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for all the damages which was not acceptable by the complainant as stated by him in reply mail dated 20.08.2015. Inspite of best efforts the complainant could not garner his dues as a compensation to the damages of the transported materials. Hence this case. The complainant prayed for reimbursement of Rs. 7,75,000/- being the value of the insured articles of Rs. 5,00,000/- along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost. The complainant exhibited a detailed photograph of damaged items along with all the relevant documents under the firisti as exhibits.
The case has come on transfer from Barasat Commission to Rajarhat Commission. The OP filed W/V on 28.06.2018.At Barasat Commission both the parties were present through their Ld. Advocates but subsequently the OPs did not turn up for contesting the caseat this commission after transfer of this case inspite of sending notice/intimation effected on 23.09.2022. Hence the case was adjudicated based on the records and documents from both the sides including W/V filed by the OP.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that there is a clear deficiency on the part of OP which has partially been admitted in page 3 of their W/V on affidavit by OP.The exhibit by complainant in a standard format from OP Company named as ‘survey report’ dated 11.08.2015clearly mentions the commentsof complainant about the list of anomalies in an elaborate form. These points raised by the complainant was never dealt by the OP. Neither the OP could reason out as to the identity of so called surveyor as contested by the complainant during conducting survey. Even then, reading the said report, it is seen that the survey is unsigned by surveyor. No explanation for the same has come on record. Further as per said report, no cogent material is discussed in the report which is otherwise also very sketchy. No affidavit of surveyor is also filed. In these circumstances, the so called surveyor report is not a reliable one but it can be partially accepted as it is assessed by the complainant himself with his remarks and signature.Hence the entire content of the survey report from the angle of OP gets vitiated in absence of any cogent reasoning from OP. The appointed survey report is not also from any Insurance company as per IRDA guidelines though the OP company has realised the one time insurance premium from the Complainant for Rs. 15,000/- but failed to provide any insurance certificate. However, it is observed from the said ‘survey report’ duly signed and endorsed by the complainant that the list of damaged items as mentioned by the complainant includes ‘10’ items, valuation of which iscorroborated by another exhibit, which is a‘itemwiselist of total articles’ for 167 numbersand for a total declared value of Rs. 5,00,000/- that works out to be an average value of Rs. 3000/- per article as per list in OP company’s documents comprising4 pages. Therefore an estimated value of those 10 damaged articles for those 10 numbers of admitted articles by factoring in 20% depreciation works out to be Rs. 24,000/- (as it has also come on record that some of the damages articles were also old), which qualifies for compensation to the damages during transit. The OP is unable to rebut the allegations and instead, resorted to denial of the allegations in a mechanical way, without appropriate reasoning. It is more so, after considering the photographs of the broken articles, materials and furnitures and the OP cannot escape it’s responsibility for failure to take care of the goods entrusted to it for its safe passage. OP being a service provider towards its consumer / complainant, the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for as a consumer.
Therefore, holding it guilty of deficiency in services, the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the OP. The OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees Twenty Four thousand) only towards damage of articles in question alongwitha litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of this order. A simple interest @ 9% per annum shall accrue over the entire payable amount by the OP to the Complainant in case of default, till full realization.
Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.
Dictated and corrected by
[HON'BLE MR. Partha Kumar Basu]
MEMBER
