M/s Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. V/S Tek Chand Verma
Tek Chand Verma filed a consumer case on 06 Dec 2023 against M/s Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. in the DF-I Consumer Court. The case no is CC/379/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Dec 2023.
Chandigarh
DF-I
CC/379/2022
Tek Chand Verma - Complainant(s)
Versus
M/s Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)
In Person
06 Dec 2023
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,
M/s Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.20, Survey No.12, Konthaguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084.
… Opposite Party
CORAM :
PAWANJIT SINGH
PRESIDENT
SURJEET KAUR
MEMBER
SURESH KUMAR SARDANA
MEMBER
ARGUED BY
:
Sh.P.K.Puri, Authorized Representative of Complainant.
:
Sh.Vivek Baghla, Advocate for OP.
Per Surjeet kaur, Member
Averments are that the daughter of complainant booked a consignment containing five boxes through OP on dated 7.9.2019 Ex-Hyderabad to Mohali and amount paid amount of Rs.4000/- to the OP. Out of five boxes, two boxes containing Samsung LED TV and Lamp Shade were found to be damaged causing financial loss of Rs.16,345/- to the complainant. Thereafter the company was duly informed immediately on receipt of consignment and the representative of OP company visited the complainant house, seen the broken/damaged items, took the photographs. He regrets that inspite of repeated requests, the company is not initiating proper action for reimbursement of the claim amount. Despite of the several efforts made by the complainant no satisfactory response has been received from the side of OP nor any solution is provided to the complainant till date. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
OP contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the complaint is hopelessly time barred. The packages were booked on 7.9.2019 and the present complaint has been filed on 30.03.2022 after elapse of more than 2½ years. It is also stated that the complainant booked 5 packages meaning thereby all the items were already packed and the OP had no opportunity to inspect the items at the time of booking. Moreso the items which were to be shipped were not specified. It is further stated that if there is any loss to the complainant on the part of the OP, then OP is liable for Rs.5000/- at the maximum. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
As per Annexure C-1, complainant paid Rs.4000/- for the purpose of sending a consignment containing five boxes. Out of which 2 boxes containing Samsung TV (LED) and lamp shade were found to be damaged causing financial loss to the complainant. Accordingly, on the intimation of OPs only the complainant applied for claim as Annexure C-2. As per page No.6 and 8 of paper book the declared cargo value is Rs.36000. At page No.7 one estimation letter with regard to loss in question has been placed on record by the complainant totaling to Rs.13,595/-. As per page No.9, three boxes of cloths and only one LED TV and lamp shade were the part of shipment with specific mention of declared cargo value is to the tune of Rs.36000/-.
The stand taken by OP is that it did not have opportunity to inspect the items at the time of booking. Also, it has been contended that its maximum liability is only Rs.5000/-.
After going through the documents on record, it is quite clear that OP itself has declared the value of the cargo to the tune of Rs.36,000/-. Only two expensive/breakable items were to be delivered, for which the OP did not take proper care. At page No.13 of paper book email dated 3.7.2020 reads as under:-
“This is to inform you that as per system complaint has been closed because hard copy of document and pan were not received. Kindly update if you have submitted the document or not.
Please do write in four any further assistance.
Thank you for writing us,
Note : 1) Request you to zip the attachment or send multiple emails as we can receive emails upto 4MB only.
2) Due to out break of Corna Virus Covid-19 situation and Section 144 imposed and our field representatives are working limited resource. Hence we request you to provide us some time to clear this issue".
The contents of email above itself show the intention of the OP that due to outbreak of Covid-19, it was seeking more time to clear this issue, but finally by closing the case of complainant without any specific reason it forced the complainant to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. On the one hand, the OP is denying the claim of the complainant and on the other hand has shown its interest to settle the matter for Rs.5000/. Hence, the act of OP for non-providing proper services proves deficiency in service and its indulgence in unfair trade practice.
In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-
To refund amount of ₹13595/- as per the estimated loss to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint onwards.
to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him.
to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the OP within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.
Sd/-
06/12/2023
[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls
President
Sd/-
[Surjeet Kaur]
Member
Sd/-
[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.