Date of Filing:19/02/2018

Date of Order:19/07/2018

BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated: 19^THDAY OF JULY2018

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT

SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.264/2018

V/s

ORDER

BY SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT:

1. This is the complaint filed by the complainant in person against the Opposite Party ( hereinafter referred to as O.P ) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  praying this Forum to order the OP to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards damage of the cot, to pay Rs.300/- towards dismantling the cot and to pay Rs.5,050/- towards refund which could not be applied and got from complainant’s office and also to pay Rs.2,850/- towards the amount collected to get the insurance,  damages towards rude behavior and betraying the complainant by demanding the insurance amount and further to pay Rs.2,000/- for defaming the complainant and his wife.

2.  The contents of the complaint in brief are that, on 1.12.2017 the complainant availed the service of O.P for shifting household articles from his old house i.e. No.28, Yellappa layout, Manipal County Road, Singasandra, Bengaluru to No.634, 21^st Cross, K.P.C. Layout, Kasavanahalli, Amrita College Road, Bengaluru through ops transportation vehicle. One Mr.Amit Sharma representative of O.P promised that the articles like cot would be bubble wrapped to avoid damage. But articles like cot, mattress, and sofa were not wrapped as promised.  Further complainant has spent Rs.300/- for dismantling the cot as the labours appointed by the OP were not skilled.  They did not handle the materials properly and hence it caused damage to the cot and other materials given to them for transportation. While packing and moving to new place, the cot was completely damaged i.e. scratched and wood polish has gone in most of the places. Complainant contacted the manufacturer of the cot to enquire the cost for repair and they gave a quotation for Rs.15,000/-.

3.   Complainant further submitted that while packing the house hold article, one of the labourer was under the influence of alcohol. Few flower pots were also broken. They were not listening to his request. They were abusive. Forced and threatened to pay Rs.7,000/-. After negotiation, it was settled for Rs.4,000/-. As per quotation O.P ought to have insured the articles for transportation, but the same was not done.  Inspite of repeated calling and requesting him to issue the payment receipt for Rs.5,050/- and  to give receipt for the insurance cover, they have not given the same. Thereby deprived him from claiming the amount from his company.  It is further contended that he complained to the customer care of OP and they offered Rs.3,000/- only towards compensation which complainant refused.  Hence the complaint.

4.     Upon the service of notice in person. O.P remained absent and placed exparte.

5.     In order to substantiate the case, the complainant by filing his affidavit examined himself  by producing documents. Heard the arguments.        The following points arise for our consideration:-

1)   Whether the complainant has proved

      deficiency in service on the part of the

     Opposite Party?

2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

       the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT 1:       In the Affirmative.

POINT 2:      Partly in the Affirmative

     for the following:

REASONS

ON POINTNo.1:-

7.     On 1.12.2017 the complainant availed the service of O.P for shifting his household articles from his old house i.e. No.28, Yellappa layout, Manipal County Road, Singasandra, Bengaluru to house No.634, 21^st Cross, K.P.C. Layout, Kasavanahalli, Amrita College Road, Bengaluru.

8.     The Complainant apart from filing the affidavit evidence reiterating the facts of the complaint has also produced quotation No.109 issued by the complainant marked as Ex.P1 wherein he had agreed to transport the goods for a sum of Rs.5,200/- door to door delivery. The declared value for the goods was Rs.2,850/-. Date of package and date of moving was on 1.12.2017. Ex. P2 is the quotation for repairing the cot said to have been damaged during the package and transportation by OP given by one Royal Touch for Rs.15,000/-. Ex. P3 is the a letter written by Honey Well to the complainant informing the terms and conditions of reimbursement at the time of relocation.  Ex. P4 are the six (6) photographs to show that the materials damaged  during  transportation.

9.     By considering all these, it becomes clear that the O.P agreed to transport the articles of the complainant on 1.12.2017 to the new residence.  The photographs clearly shows that there are some damages to the articles.   When such being the case, O.P though served with notice, did not appeared before the Forum and not submitted his version, by denying or accepting the allegations and the averments made. In view of this, it is to be held that there is deficiency in service in packaging the materials and transporting the same like a professional packers and movers. Hence we  answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

POINT No.2:

10.   In view of the above answer, and since there is deficiency in service, O.P is bound to compensate the damages caused to the articles which were transported by O.P to the new house of the complainant.  The complainant has sought Rs.15,000/- as repair charges for the cot , Rs.300/ - for dismantling the cot and Rs.5050/-which was to be reimbursed by the complainant’s office which was not done due to non-issuing of the receipt by O.P and Rs.2,850/- taken by op towards insurance, since insurance is not covered and Rs.2,000/- for defaming him and his wife.

11.   Though the quotation is for Rs.15,000/- for repairing the cot, out of that amount a new cot would have been purchased. Hence the claim of the complainant is exorbitant. It is the allegation that as per quotation Rs.5,200/- has been charged for transportation which the complainant has paid but O P has not issued receipt.  If he had issued receipt, complainant would have made a claim with his company for reimbursement for which he had to make the claim within one month from the date of transportation. In view of this, complainant has lost opportunity of claiming refund. Ex. P3 is the condition prescribed for reimbursement which also states that within particular time, he has to make his claim for reimbursement along with original receipts.  Since the O.P has not issued original receipt for having received the amount, complainant was deprived of claiming the said amount which has caused loss to him. Hence O.P is bound to pay the said amount to the complainant.

12.   Further in Ex.P1 there is mention of insurance transit risk of Rs.2,850/- collected by O.P. Had the O.P given the transit Insurance Policy to the complainant, he would have recovered the same or got reimbursed from his employer as per the terms of Ex. P3.  For defaming the complainant and his wife, complainant has claimed Rs.2,000/-. 

13.   By considering all the above and in view of the O.P not appearing before the Forum, not denying the facts alleged, it is to be held that O P is bound to pay for the damages and for the inconvenience caused.

14.   In view of no concrete evidence regarding the value of the damage to the articles, we are of the opinion that if a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards repairing the damaged  articles, Rs.5,200/- towards the reimbursement loss and Rs.2,850/- towards the amount collected towards insurance and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation if awarded will meet ends of justice. The prayer for damages for defaming is disallowed since there is no concrete evidence and particulars as to how they were defamed is placed.  Hence, we answer Point No.2 Partly in the Affirmative and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The Complaint is allowed in part with cost.

2. The O.P i.e. M/s Nikhil International Packers & Movers represented by its Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards repairing the said articles, Rs.5,200/- towards the reimbursement loss and Rs.2,850/- towards the amount collected towards insurance to the complainant and a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days, failing which O.P is directed to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of complaint till the date payment .

3.   The O.P is here by directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.

4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 19^th Day of JULY 2018 )

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

*RAK

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

CW-1:- Bandaru Venkata Sai Kishore -Complainant.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex.P1: Quotation No.109 given by O.p.

Ex.P2: Quotation from cot manufacturers Royal Touch.

Ex.P3: Copy of one time relocation assistance program policy document by Honey Well Technology solutions.

Ex.P4: Photograph (6 in Nos.)

Ex. P5: Paytm  receipt of Rs.4,000/- transferred to O.P.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

- Nil -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

- Nil -

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT