Advocate N.B.Naik for the complainant
Advocate Dhumal for the Opponent
Per Hon’ble Shri. Mohan Patankar, Member
JUDGMENT
Dated 7th July, 2014
The present complaint is filed against the Transporter for loss of household goods and thereby causing financial losses. Brief facts are narrated below-
[1] Complainant is working in Indian Army at Jabalpur. He was transferred to Leh. He decided to shift his household articles to Pune. Opponent transported the goods to Pune, through its goods carrier on 30/1/2012. While unloading the goods at Pune on 2/2/2012 , it was noticed that two suitcases were not delivered and found missing. Complainant took endorsement of the driver on the transport memo as well as on the copy of list of articles. Complainant also filled information of lost property to the Bibwewadi Police station on 10/2/2012. Complainant also sent notice to the Opponent on 14/2/2012. Vide letter dated 4/3/2012 Opponent denied the facts and intimated that all the goods as per the list were delivered to the complainant. Hence, complainant has filed present complaint and claimed compensation of Rs.95,000/- towards financial loss, mental and physical sufferings.
[2] Opponent has filed written statement and denied the charges made by the complainant. It is contended that he had no knowledge about the loading of the goods, which was done at the house of complainant. Opponent has also denied the endorsement of the driver of the truck and claimed that it is forged. Carrying of goods was at owner’s risk, is the term of this service. The consignment was agreed at Jabalpur [M.P.] and not at Pune. Hence, it is not within the jurisdiction. Opponent has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
[3] After considering the pleadings of both parties, scrutinizing the documentary evidence and hearing the argument, following points arise for the determination of this Forum. The points, findings and reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1 | Whether complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Opponent ? | In the affirmative |
2 | Whether the Opponent is liable to pay compensation and cost to the complainant ? | In the affirmative |
3 | What order ? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
Reasons-
As to the Point Nos. 1 to 3-
[4] It is undisputed fact that the complainant had hired services of Opponent for transporting his household articles from Jabalpur to Pune. Both parties have not disclosed about the consideration which was to be paid. Complainant has stated that balance payment of Rs.2,000/- was paid after the delivery of goods at Pune. Opponent has denied the same. It reveals from the endorsement made by the driver on the copy of bill [biltly/voucher] as well as on the copy of the list of goods which were transported by the Opponent to Pune that two suitcases were not delivered. Copy of police complaint, which is lodged by the complainant, is also placed on record. Complainant has persuaded the matter with opponent for recovery of losses. Opponent has not placed any evidence to prove that the endorsement of the driver is forged and lodging of police complaint is also false. Hence, it is crystal clear that Opponent was negligent while transporting the goods of complainant, resulting into loss of articles, which amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has placed two lists regarding contents of articles and its value. Now for considering the value of lost of articles, complainant has not proved the original prices of articles and its date of purchase. In absence of evidence, it is held that the articles were used one and not brand new. Hence, in absence of evidence, claim of complainant in respect to the loss of article to the extent of Rs.85,000/- cannot be accepted as it is exorbitant. There is no record before the Forum as to whether the articles were Brand new or otherwise after consideration of depreciation of prices the claim can be reduced upto about fifty percentage. We are of the opinion that ends of justice will meet if the Opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant for loss of articles. Complainant is also entitled to receive compensation and cost from the Opponent.
In the result, we answers the points accordingly and pass following order-
:- ORDER :-
- Complaint is partly allowed.
- It is hereby declared that Opponent has caused deficiency in service while transporting the household articles of complainant.
- Opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs.40,000/- [Rupees Forty Thousand only] to the complainant towards loss of articles within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
- Opponent is directed to pay amount of Rs.5,000/- [Rupees Five Thousand only] to the complainant towards compensation for mental and physical sufferings and costs within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order.
- Both parties are directed to collect the sets which are provided for the Hon’ble Members within one month from the date of order. Else those will be destroyed.
Copy of order be supplied to both the parties free of cost.
Place – Pune
Date – 07/07/2014
