DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 568 of 2010 Date of Inst: 07.09.2010 Date of Decision:28.01.2011 Mr.Amit Kumar through his father-in-law Mr.S.S.Chhoker (Special Power of Attorney holder) R/o H.No.1407 FF, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S M/s R.P. Enterprises, Cabin No.2, SCO No.53-54, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh through its Proprietor and business partner Ms.Naina Rajput and Sh.Vikram. ---Opposite Party QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.N.S.Jagdeva, Adv. for complainant OP exparte. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Mr.Amit Kumar through Mr.S.S.Chhoker, his father-in-law and special power of attorney has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) Refund Rs.1,66,419/- the price of the lost articles. ii) Rs.43000/- being the carriage charges. iii) Pay the price of the new household articles and the hotel bills worth Rs.71,226+ Rs.20000/- = Rs.91226/-. iv) To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony. v) To pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he hired the services of OP for transportation of household goods from Chandigarh to Hongkong by paying Rs.43,000/- as transportation charges (Annexure C-3). On 29.04.2010, the complainant booked a parcel weighing 250 kgs containing the household articles, clothes artificial jewellery, books and grocery items with OP. The value of the said household articles contained in the parcel was about Rs.3 lacs as per list Annexure C-2. The said parcel was to be delivered at the door step of the complainant at Hongkong within 20 days from the date of its booking. But the parcel did not reach the complainant in time. So he lodged complaint (Annexure C-12) with the police. Ultimately, the said parcel was delivered to the complainant at China Border which is 200 k.m. away from his house. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 21.06.2010 (Annexure C-14) upon the OP. It has further been pleaded by the complainant that said parcel was received in damaged condition and some of the items like grocery items, clothes, books, shoes etc. were missing. Due to which, the complainant suffered mental agony and harassment besides financial loss. The complainant had to purchase all the grocery articles from Hong Kong at higher price and had to take his meals from hotel. The complainant assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,66,419/- due to inept handling of consignment by respondent. Thereafter, the complainant requested the OP many times to compensate for the loss suffered by him but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. Initially, Sh.Vikram, Office Assistant of OP-Company appeared but subsequently it remained absent and was proceeded against exparte on 08.12.2010. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. 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 Chandigarh to Hongkong. 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 parcel. Annexure C-4 to C-11 are copies of some of the bills regarding purchase of the household articles etc. The complainant has also placed on record the copy of the hotel bills as Annexure C-16 (colly.) for the period from 21.05.2010 to 09.06.2010 towards the expenses incurred on the meals. Besides, the complainant has also attached copy of the bill (Annexure C-17) vide which the complainant has purchased grocery items at Hongkong. 6. Thus, from the evidence discussed above, it has been duly proved that the parcel was not delivered at the door step of the complainant. It was delivered to the complainant at China border that too in a damaged condition. Some of the articles were found missing and some of the articles were broken. The estimated value of the total loss is Rs.1,66,419/-. All the allegations made in the complaint have gone unrebutted and uncontroverted as nobody appeared on behalf of the OP to contest the case. Thus, the complainant is entitled to sum of Rs.1,66,419/- on account of loss suffered by him due to loss of items and due to the damage caused to the articles. In addition to this, the complainant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment. However, the complainant is not entitled to consequential losses such as hotel charges etc. 7. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,66,419/- towards the costs of the articles lost/damaged during the transit of the said parcel. OP is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 8. 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.1,76,419/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization besides costs of litigation of Rs.7000/-. 9. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 28.01.2011, Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
