PRESENT:      Complainant in person.

OPs exparte.

                              ---

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

          Sh.Alok Chaturvedi has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed  :-

i)              To repair/replace the damaged items of furniture, crockery and electronic worth Rs.20,000/-.

ii)         To pay Rs.23,000/- on account of loss of items during transportation.

iii)    To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for expenditure on medical and discomfort.

iv)         To pay Rs.12,000/- on account of sustenance during the replacement of missing kitchenware.

v)              To pay Rs.5,000/- on account of transportation and telephone calls etc.

vi)         To pay Rs.5,000/- on account of expenditure incurred on misuse of car.

vii)    To pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

2.        In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he was posted as Manager (Security) in RBI at Kochi. He was transferred to Chandigarh and therefore, he hired the services of M/s Aggarwal packers (OP-1) for transportation of his car as well as household luggage from Kochi to Chandigarh. The car and the luggage were to be carried separately. It has further been pleaded that one of the conditions on which the luggage was booked with OP-1 was that the luggage will not be shifted from one vehicle to another during transit and the OPs had agreed to the above said term. According to the complainant, on 01.05.2009, he booked the household luggage. The entire household luggage was nicely loaded in a truck having closed container. Each and every item was compactly adjusted. Thereafter, the complainant put his own lock on the door of the container as the luggage was to be transported in the same truck without there being any transshipment on the way. It has further been pleaded that the complainant received the said luggage on 10.05.2009. The complainant and his family members were utterly surprised to see that the luggage was contained in two trucks. It appeared that transshipment was done on the way. When they unpacked the household luggage, they found that the items of crockery, furniture, electronics mentioned in the list Annexure A were found damaged. The approximate value of damaged articles is Rs.20000/-. The articles mentioned in the list Annexure B worth Rs.23000/- were found missing. The complainant immediately informed the OPs about the  damage caused to the furniture etc and loss of items. OPs asked the complainant not to disturb the broken items till their employee visits his house to assess the loss. According to the complainant, the articles remained scattered in the house for a long period. However, no action to pay the compensation was taken. When the complainant approached the OPs repeatedly, he was asked to approach the insurance company with whom the said household luggage was got insured by OPs. According to the complainant, there was no privity of contract between him and the insurance company despite it, he approached the insurance company. The insurance company again asked the complainant not to disturb the broken items till the loss is assessed by the surveyor and again the household articles remained lying scattered till the loss was assessed by the surveyor appointed by the Company. However, the insurance company asked the complainant to approach OP-1 as the compensation, if any, regarding the loss to the household luggage will be paid to OP-1 by the Company. After several requests, OPs offered to pay a sum of Rs.13000/- in lump sum as compensation for the loss of items as well as damage caused to the furniture etc. In alternative, OPs offered to pay Rs.40000/- with condition to return back the damaged items. Both the terms were not acceptable to the complainant as the first option offered a meager amount which would not have compensated for the loss. As per the second option, after returning the damaged articles, the complainant would have to purchase new items which are costly in the market as per the prevailing rates. So ultimately, OPs declined to pay the compensation. Therefore, the complainant served a legal notice upon OPs but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.        Notice was duly sent to OP-1 but it failed to appear either in person or through counsel, therefore, OP-1 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.01.2010.

4.        OP-2 refused to accept the notice. As refusal is a good service, therefore, OP-2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order even date.

5.        We have heard the complainant in person and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 

6.        In his affidavit, the complainant has reiterated the facts as mentioned in the complaint. Annexure C-1 is the list of articles which were handed over to the OPs for being transported from Kochi to Chandigarh. The said list contains approximate value of each article. Thus, the value of each of the item was declared at the time of booking of the household luggage and at the time of delivery of the luggage for transportation.

7.        Annexure A is the list of articles which were found broken during transportation, the approximate value of the broken items is worth Rs.20,000/-. The value of the damaged articles tallies with the value mentioned in the packing list as per Annexure C.

8.        Annexure B is the list of articles which were found missing, the approximate value of which is worth Rs.23,000/-. The value of the articles mentioned in the list tallied with the declared value of the items mentioned in the packing list (Annexure C). So the complainant is entitled to Rs.23,000/- for the loss caused to him on account of loss of items.

9.        Thus, from the evidence discussed above, it has been duly proved that when the luggage was received at Chandigarh, the articles mentioned in list Annexure A were found to be broken, the value of which is Rs.20000/- and the articles mentioned in Annexure B were found missing, the value of which is Rs.23000/-. Thus, the complainant is entitled to sum of Rs.43000/- on account of on account of broken and missing items. In addition to this, the complainant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.50000/- on account of compensation for discomfort.

10.       In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.43,000/- on account of broken and missing items. OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for causing discomfort and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.

11.       This order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.83,000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13.08.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation.

12.       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11.02.2010