The Complainant approached the O.P for transportation of his house hold goods from Waidhan District Singrauli (Madhya Pradesh) as per the list Annexure-1. On 12.03.2014 the complainant paid Rs. 21,000/- out of total consideration of Rs. 23,000/- to the OP as service charge vide consignment No. 0795 dated 12.03.2014 as per Annexure-2 with a promise to clear the balance amount of Rs. 2,000/- at the time of delivery of goods. As per the commitment of OP the said goods has to be reached at Malkangiri on 21.03.2014. When the goods did not reach on 21.03.2014 the complainant approached the Opposite Party over telephone who took one plea and other and the goods reached after 25 days of its book. It is further submitted that as per the oral agreement with the O.P. the goods materials ought to have been transported in a separate Mini Truck (TATA-407) bearing No. UP64C/8767 vide DL No. 56T94SBR of the Driver Mr. O.P. KEJHAR. But the O.P. Violating the said agreement sent the materials as per his will and pleasure in a Vehicle bearing No. MP-53 2148 with a Driver namely Ram Nayak Singh. After unloaded the material the complainant found that some valuable materials as per the item No. 17,26,34,38 found shortage and the item No. 16 containing the Bike was damaged to which the concerned Driver of the Vehicle put his remarks and signature on the House hold material list. It is further submitted that as per the oral agreement the loading & un-loading of the goods/material ought to have been paid by the O.P but the complainant was compelled to pay the above charges against his will. It is contended that, as the goods materials did not reach in due time the complainant was compelled to purchase some other personal effects for his and his family members day to day use as the complainant was transferred from Waidan to his new place of posting at Malkangiri (Odisha) and suffered a lot. Due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and financial loss. Under the above circumstances, finding no other alternative the complainant is filling this complaint for proper redressal of his grievances on a prayer to direct the Opposite Party to pay the damage charges of the materials/goods to the complainant amounting to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) and to direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as the cost of litigation.

           Despite due notice, the Opposite Party neither appeared nor filed his written version as such he set ex-parte vide our order dated 30.07.2014.

                We come across a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Dhar-versus-Munkif Rao and another reported in 1992(2) Civil Court Cases at page-91 held that “ if a party did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal, then adverse inference should drawn against the party for not rebutting the evidence”.

Therefore, the un-rebutted arguments left no corner to disbelieve the complaint. Taking consideration the undisputed documentary evidence and pleadings, we are inclined to pass order in favour of the complainant, directing the Opposite Party to Pay Rs.10,000/- the damage charges of the materials/goods to the complainant and pay Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only)  towards litigation expenses to the complainant within 30 days  on receipt of a copy of this order failing which the Opposite Party is liable to pay Rs. 200/- per day of default till its realization.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on 30th September, 2014.