BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.719/2008 against C.C.No.954/2007, District Forum-II, Hyderabad.
Between:
M/s.Agarwal Packers & Movers,
Kabra complex, 61, M.G.Road,
Secunderabad-500 003. Appellant/
Opp.party
And
Mr.Anil Kumar, S/o.Sri Ramphal,
Aged 37 years, Occ:Army Officer,
R/o.H.No.83/3, Officers’ colony,
Hanuman Temple, Near Karkhana Road,
Trimulgherry, Secunderabad, A.P. Respondent/
Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr.N.Prakash
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.K.Visweswara Rao
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral order:(Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)
***
This is an appeal preferred by the opposite party against the order of the District Forum awarding compensation of Rs.17,000/- besides directing it to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards the insurance claim.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he delivered his personal house hold articles to the appellant, a carrier, in six steel boxes to be delivered at his residence at Hyderabad from Faridabad on payment of Rs.30,000/- evidenced under Exs.A1 to A3 dated 14-9-2007. It had agreed to deliver the goods on 19th September, however delivered the same on 22-9-2007 by damaging not only the boxes but also to the goods. The appellant collected insurance premium evidenced under Ex.A2 in order to cover an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for insurance policy. When the goods were delivered, they found that not only the boxes were damaged but the washing machine, Designer trolley table etc. Therefore, he claim Rs.45,000/- towards damage to the household articles besides compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
The appellant, carrier, resisted the case. However, while denying each and every allegation made by the complainant, it admitted that it had endorsed on the bill that household articles would be delivered to the complainant on 19-9-2007. It denied that it offered insurance coverage of Rs.1,00,000/- as part of the package. While so, there were heavy rains due to which the vehicles could not move fast and there was delay of two days in delivery of the consignment. In view of the jerks in the truck, there was slight denting on the steel boxes and at any rate there was no damage to the goods. However, when the articles were delivered to the complainant, he insisted that the damages be listed out and accordingly the same was made a mention and a list Ex.A4 was prepared. At any rate the compensation claimed was on the higher side and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit and relied on Exs.A1 to A8 while the opposite party did not mark any documents.
The District Forum while allowing the complaint directed the appellant, carrier to pay Rs.17,000/- towards damage to the goods besides Rs.1,00,000/- payable towards insurance claim.
Aggrieved by the said order, the carrier preferred the appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate the facts in correct perspective. It never received any premium in order to cover the goods by the insurance company for Rs.1,00,000/-. The damage to the goods in the boxes was minimum and they could be repaired with a minimum cost and therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.
It is an undisputed fact that the complainant, an army officer, had entrusted his household articles on 14-9-2007 packed in six boxes to the appellant, a carrier company, to be delivered at his residence on 14-9-2007 by paying the freight charges. While the carrier has agreed to deliver the goods on 19-9-2007 there was delay, and they were ultimately delivered on 22-9-2007 with a delay of two days. At the time when the goods were delivered, the complainant found that the goods were damaged and noted the damage of each item evidenced under Ex.A5 signed by their supervisor. A damage report was also issued under Ex.A6. The District Forum had computed the amount towards these damages namely Rs.500/- each for six boxes, value of the washing machine at Rs.6,000/- value of designer trolley table at Rs.5,000/-.
It is contended by the complainant that a comprehensive insurance policy for Rs.1,00,000/- was taken by the consignor and a premium of Rs.1.5% for value of goods of Rs.1,00,000/- was collected and he was entitled to it. There is no proof that the premium amount was collected from the complainant. It is stated therein that no separate policy will be issued and the claim will be settled by the carrier and the carrier will seek reimbursement thereafter. Be that as it may, the complainant did not implead the insurance company as a party in order claim the amount from the insurance company and at any rate having claimed an amount of Rs.45,000/- towards damage, he could not have claimed Rs.1,00,000/- from the insurance company, even assuming that there was a policy in his favour. Therefore, the District Forum went wrong in directing the carrier to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant. Since there is no appeal preferred by the complainant in regard to adequacy of the compensation awarded by the District Forum, we are of the opinion that the compensation of Rs.17,000/- is reasonable and modest.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the appellant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards insurance policy, while confirming the rest of the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.28-9-2010
