Haryana

Panchkula

CC/45/2018

SHUBHRA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S AGGARWAL PACKERS & MOVERS LTD - Opp.Party(s)

RAVI KANT

21 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	45 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	07.03.2018
Date of Decision	:	21.03.2022

 

 

Shubhra Rani wife of Sh. Neeraj Rukhaiyar R/o House No..156(B) Housing Board Colony, Kalka, District, Panchkula.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

1.     M/s Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd., Regd.  Office 49, Ground         Floor, Eastern Chamber, 128/A, Poona Street, Danabunder,   Mumbai, 400009 through its Managing Director.

2.     Managing Director, M/s Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd. (APML),      Corporate Office, Agarwal movers Group, Opp. Crescent Public         School Saraswati Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi-110034.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Ravi Sharma, Advocate for complainant.    

Sh. T.T.P.Singh, Advocate for OPs No.1 & 2.

 

ORDER

(Per Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant on her transfer from Kinathukadavu (Coimbatore) to Parwanoo District Solan as Branch Manager Central Bank of India had hired the services of OPs in May 2017 for packing(loading and unloading) and transportation of used household goods by road from Kinathukudavu (Coimbatore) to Kalka, District Panchkula, where she had taken a house for rent, as the Kalka adjoins Parwanoo Town. The bill no. WIBLCOMBO88248 dated 05.06.2017 was prepared by the Kavita Jaiswal for Rs.6,292/- and the goods consignment note dated 05.06.2017 was also issued by Sh.Kailash. The invoice no.WIBLCOMBO 88243 dated 05.06.2017 issued for Rs.76,146/-and duly checked by the Sh.Kailash and an inventory sheet with detail of household goods was also prepared with total items 72 in numbers for Rs.2.00 lacs as value in the same.  The officials/servants of the OP also issued special contract form and request for risk coverage under SR No.WIYNCOMBBO103486 dated 05.06.2017 was also issued. Thereafter, the employees/servants of OP reached the residence of the complainant on 05.06.2017 at 7:30AM instead of called at 9:00 AM and stared packing and carrying the goods in hurriedly manner inspite of the fact that she herself repeatedly requested them to take due care. Thereafter, the officials of the OPs booked the consignment of her and they started insisting for full payment at the same time, still the complainant made the payment on 07.06.2017 through IMPF which credited at the same time with Rs.82,438/-(including Rs.7,000/- payment for insurance). It is stated that instead of checking their accounts, the OPs demanded for repayment again and again although the applicant confirmed several time via her calls and e-mail messages. The Ops still continued their demand for payment upto 16.07.2017(10 days after payment) when the complainant with her husband was on trip to south India.  Despite every time, she had to check their record, they denied the complainant payment. After many efforts of the complainant, the finance department of the OPs admitted, the payment made by her on 07.06.2017. It is also stated that they delivered the goods on 17.07.2017 while the OPs had assured to deliver the goods within seven days. Due to the negligence of the OPs in not delivering the goods in time, the complainant had to stay at Chandigarh and had to pay higher rate of accommodation and she had to engage taxi for up down to her office at Parwanoo(HP). Due to the negligence of the Ops, most of the things are damaged or under repair/replace including washing machine took more than one month as company engineers were not free for coming to Kalka. The beds and Cots were lees in number. She came to know from a person of OP that her consignment was in Gurgoan but it can’t be delivered due to payment issue. Thereafter, the applicant tracked the consignment on line that it is in Khawaspur on 15.06.2017 and after lot of discussion they agreed to deliver on 17/18 Jun 2017. The above said act of the Ops shows gross deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade practices and had caused constant mental agony and harassment to the complainant; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false; no locus standi; the complainant has not a consumer as defined under the CP Act; no territorial jurisdiction; mis-joinder and non-joinder. On merits, it is stated that based on an enquiry by the complainant, a quotation dated 26.05.2017 was sent quoting the charges for the above transportation as well as furnishing other details. The quotation also contained preliminary general terms and conditions under which the transportation was to be done, which are briefly mentioned below relevant to the case of the complainant. (i) Transit Time:- For used household goods transportation 300 km per day(excluding pick-up and delivery day). (ii) All electronics items/computers are packed on an “as is where is basis” as such company does not accept any liability whatsoever for any defect/ malfunctioning if any at the destination. (iii) Transit Risk Coverage:- We always try to emphasis our clients on the risk coverage booking of APML and goods should be covered under carrier risk by paying additional charges as FOV as per rate specified. The client must record proper value of the goods in the Inventory sheet which will be treated as a final document in claim settlement if any. (iv) 100% payment is required at the booking point favour of Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd by any mode of payment. (v) M/s Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd (APML) will not be held responsible for any delay in delivery due to factors beyond its control. After receipt of quotation the complainant approached Coimbatore Branch of OP for transportation of her goods and accordingly, the goods to be transported were properly packed in presence of the complainant and inventory sheets, 03 sheets, in total, consisting of 71 items/packages were prepared and signed by the complainant.  It is also stated that no delay or harassment has been caused by the OPs as the payment was made through Electronic Mode on the next date of booking i.e. 06.06.2017 as conveyed but actually the payment was releasd on 07.06.2017 as communicated by her in mail dated 14.06.2017 at 11:37 pm and as such when checked the credit of amount did not appear in the accounts of the OPs and thus, the goods could not be transported without the receipt of the payment from the complainant. The goods were as per her perception not delivered to her for non-payment of freight charges within 07 days as assured and then she enquired from the banker of the OP on 12.06.2017 who confirmed the payment. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade of practice on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the evidence of the OPs closed by the court order dated 24.03.2021. 

4.             We have heard learned counsels for the complainant as well as OPs and gone through the entire record available on record including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

5.             Admittedly, the old/used household goods of the complainant were packed on 05.06.2017 from the residence of complainant i.e. Kinatehukadavu in Karnataka for onward transportation of the same to Kalka(Haryana). The freight was Rs.76,146/- as per invoice (Annexure C-3) and goods consignment note(Annexure C-4). The complainant made the payment of Rs.82,438/- including Rs.7,000/- for insurance  covering the risk during transportation.  After the packing of household material, a inventory of 71 items showing the value of the same as Rs.2,00,000/- was also prepared by the complainant. The consignment reached at Kalka on 20.06.2017 and the household goods were delivered to the complainant. The complainant has alleged several lapses and deficiencies on the part of the OP in connection with the transportation of said household goods by the OP from Kinatehukadavu in Karnataka to Kalka,. The main grievance of the complainant is with regard to the delayed delivery of the household goods on 20.06.2017 at Kalka (Haryana). It is alleged that she was promised that household goods would be delivered within 6/7 days but the same were delivered on 20.06.2017 i.e. after a delay of 7/8 days. The OP, apart from merits, has contested the complaint raising several preliminary objections. The objection pertaining to the lacking of territorial jurisdiction by this Commission is rejected in view of the fact that the household goods were delivered at Kalka, which falls under the jurisdiction of this Commission. The objection of pecuniary jurisdiction is also rejected as the consideration paid and claimed is below Rs.10 Lakhs. The objection of misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties is also meritless because the OP could have taken up the matter with the concerned insurance company, which had covered the risk during transportation, through the complainant by facilitating and actively advising her to lodge the claim but it preferred not to take up the matter with the concerned insurance company either at its own level or through the complainant.

6.             On merits, the OP has denied that there was any delay on its part while transporting the household goods in question from Kinatehukadavu in Karnataka to Kalka(Haryana). It is contended that the complainant was informed in advance prior to transportation of household goods as per booking documents like collection Advice dated 05.06.2014, Consignment Fixed up receipt etc., duly signed by the complainant, that the transit time for household goods would be 300KM per day exclusive of pickup and delivery day with Special Remark that it was Part Load Consignment i.e. to be transported alongwith other consignment. Besides this, payment of freight was also required to be made in advance. It is submitted that the road distance from Coimbatore to Panchkula is about 2900 km and if calculated on the above formula of coverage of distance of 300km per day, the time taken by a vehicle would be 10 days + 02 days i.e.12 days, excluding additional one day at picking point and one day at delivery point to bring the goods from the residence of complainant at Coimbatore to Kalka(Haryana) at delivery point and thus,  in no case, the consignment could have been delivered within 7 days as alleged. It is submitted that the consignment reached at Khawashpur hub Haryana on 15.06.2017 and reached at Panchkula(Haryana) on 17/18.06.2017. Further, it is stated that household goods were transported through a trailer, which usually takes 2/3 more days than a ordinary truck. Further, it is submitted that the complainant had not booked the whole truck for point to point delivery.

7.             The aforementioned plea denying any delay in the delivery of household goods by the OP is not tenable in view of the admitted factual position that the vehicle containing household goods had reached Khawashpur on 15.06.2017, which is in Haryana itself. From Khawashpur to Kalka, the vehicle took 5 days, which is neither reasonable nor justifiable from any angle. Though, it is correct to say that the distance covered by a transport vehicle in a day generally is 300km but the time taken of 5 days from transporting the goods from Khawashpur to Kalka is not justifiable. Moreover, no documentary evidence, in the shape of an Affidavit etc. has been produced on record by the OP in support of its contentions. Therefore, we find the OP was deficient while transporting the household goods from Kinatehukadavu in Karnataka to Kalka (Haryana).

                The next grievance of the complainant is that while she was on tour to south India with his family, she was disturbed and troubled repeatedly by the officials of the OP asking her to make the payment of freight charges.  It is submitted that despite her making the payment of freight charges amounting to Rs.82,438/- online on 07.06.2017, the OP continued upto 16.06.2017 asking her during her tour to South India to provide the proof of payment of freight charges.

                The OP has denied any lapse in this regard stating that the proof of payment was not provided by the complainant, which caused confusion in the matter. It is stated that the complainant failed to make the payment in advance as agreed and made the payment online. It is alleged that the payment was not made online on 06.06.2017 i.e. the next date of booking as conveyed by the complainant but, in fact, the payment was made on 07.06.2017 and because of this, confusion arose regarding the payment. The aforesaid plea is not acceptable to us because, admittedly, the payment of freight charges was made by the complainant on 07.06.2017 itself through online and the OP in this regard was repeatedly informed by the complainant. In these circumstances, we feel that a duty was cast upon the OP to contact its bank so as to check and verify the factum of payment of freight charges.  The account branch of the OP instead of maintaining its house in order continued to trouble the complainant asking her to make the payment of freight charges. Thus, the lapse in this regard on the part of the OP is well established.

                 The last grievance of the complainant is with regard to the causing of damage to various items i.e. washing machine, Almirah and iron bed etc. The OP has denied its liability stating that the complainant did not make any remarks pertaining to the damage to the washing machine, while receiving the delivery of household goods on 20.06.2017. It is stated that as per terms and conditions, any claim with regard to the damage to the household items during their transportation, could have been lodged within 03 days of delivery. Further, liability in respect of damages to the household items has been denied on the ground that it is the insurance company, which is/was liable to indemnify the loss caused to the complainant.

8.             We are not convinced and satisfied with the above mentioned plea. The complainant made the remarks about dent in Almirah and iron bed and trouble in the door of Pooja Almirah as well as missing of folding Cot on 20.06.2017 itself, while receiving the goods. Regarding the damages to the washing machine, the bill/invoice dated 05.08.2017 amounting to Rs.11,800/- clearly proves the damages to the washing machine. The denial by the OPs on the ground that claim was liable to be lodged within 03 days of delivery of household article is not justifiable because, as a matter of common knowledge, the packed household articles, which are of urgent use, are utilized by using them after unpacking the same. The other packed household articles which are not of urgent use, are utilized at later stage when the necessity so arises. We are satisfied that the damage to the washing machine either occurred due to its improper packing or during its transportation. The contention of the OPs regarding the reimbursement of the losses by the insurance company is also not tenable because the OPs neither itself nor through the complainant took up the matter with the concerned insurance company. In view of the above discussion, we conclude that both the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant jointly and severally as there was lapse and deficiencies on their parts while delivering the service to the complainant. 

9.             Regarding relief, in our opinion, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of delayed delivery of the household goods causing mental agony and physical harassment is reasonable and justified and thus, the OPs are directed to pay a  sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant  on account of  mental agony and harassment. The claim of Rs.20,000/- as travel and stay expenses is not allowed in the absence of documentary evidence.  However, the Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,800/- to the complainant on account of damages caused to the washing machine. Further, a sum of Rs. 5,500/- shall be paid by the OP to the complainant on account of litigation charges

10.            The OPs No.1 & 2 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs No.1 & 2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:21.03.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

            Member                       Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                          Satpal                              

 President