BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.466 of 2015
Date of institution: 15.09.2015
Date of Decision: 19.07.2016
Gurbachan Singh son of Karam Singh, resident of House No.3034, Sector 71, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
Raj (International) Cargo Packers & Movers, c/o Allied Movers & Packers (India), SCF No.26, First Floor, New Defence Colony, Zirakpur, District Mohali.
………. Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Mrs. R.K.Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri H.S. Parwana, counsel for the complainant.
OP Ex-parte.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint seeking following direction to the Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) to:
(a) refund Rs.3.00 lacs as cost of the car.
(b) pay him compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental pain, agony and physical harassment.
(c) to pay him Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.
The case of the complainant is that he availed the services of the OP for cargo shipment of his old/used Maruti Alto K10 car of 2013 from Mohali to Pune. The complainant booked the car for shipment with the OP vide consignment note dated 02.07.2015. Apart from Rs.10,000/- towards freight charges plus applicable taxes, a sum of Rs.2300/- was also charged by the OP towards transit risk charges covering the risk value of Rs.2,30,000/-. Thus, a total sum of Rs.13,950/- was charged by the OP on account of freight, transit insurance risk plus appropriate taxes. At the time of booking, the OP assured that the car will be delivered to the consignee within 10 days at Pune i.e. upto 12th July, 2015. On 07.07.2015 the complainant received a message from Police Station, Narwana (Haryana) that the aforesaid car of the complainant had hit a motorcyclist on the road near Bus Stand Bidhrana. The motorcyclist succumbed to his injuries and the car was found in a roadside near khatan from where it was taken to the police Station. After the accident, the driver of the car left the spot and the police took the car in its custody. FIR No.0173 dated 07.07.2015 was registered at PS Sadar, Narwana. Later on criminal case against the driver Shri Vikas Kumar was registered under Section 279 and 304 A of IPC.
The complainant was stunned to receive this message as he had booked the car with the OP for transportation from Mohali to Pune and paid the transportation charges, whereas the OPs contrary to the transportation contract, taken the vehicle by road driven by one Shri Vikas Kumar, driver. . The complainant informed the OP about the en-route accident of the car. On the request of the OP, power of attorney in favour of Gaje Singh @ Gajinder Singh, Manager/authorised representative of the OP and the RC and insurance policy of the car was delivered to the OP for taking possession of the car on sapurdari. After taking sapurdari, the car has been with M/s. Tricity Auto Workshop at Zirakpur. The car has been totally damaged. The complainant was to stay with his son and grand children at Pune but due to negligence of the OP the car has met with an accident while on road causing death of a person. The complainant would also be dragged in unnecessary litigation on account of criminal case as well as MACT case. The complainant has suffered great mental trauma, agony and great tension and physical harassment due to the negligence of the OP. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
2. Registered notice sent to the OP received back with the report of refusal. Hence, presuming due service and none having appeared for it, the OP was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.02.2016.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-4.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have also gone through written arguments filed by him.
5. Since the OP has been proceeded exparte and neither filed any reply nor any rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the act of the OPs, as settled in the case titled as K.D. Ajay Khosh Vs. M/s. Alliance Habitat, 2013 (2) CLT 389, Hon’ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, amounts to admission. Hence, it will be appropriate to appreciate the evidence of the complainant for adjudication of the present case.
6. The complainant has proved the booking of consignment i.e. old and used car bearing No.PB-65-U-3630 for transportation from Mohali to Pune vide consignment note No.5174 dated 02.07.2015 Ex.C-2. As per consignment note he has paid freight charges of Rs.10,000/-, risk charges Rs.2300/- and sales tax Rs.1400/- and total amount being Rs.13,900/-. As per the terms of consignment note, the OP has taken an obligation upon itself that the consignment will not be detained, diverted , and routed or re-booked without consignor’s written permission and the consignment will be delivered at the destination door to door, meaning thereby from Mohali to the given address at Pune.
7. The act of the OP of not following the instructions and complying with the obligations undertaken by it, is proved from the document Ex.C-3, a copy of the FIR No.0173 dated 07.07.2015, P.S. Narwana, District Jind (Haryana) wherein the factum of car having met with in road accident has been recorded. Thus, the perusal of contents of the FIR clearly shows that the OP has violated the terms of consignment note and instead of taking the vehicle to Pune by transportation, has driven the vehicle by road through driver Vikas Kumar, who was subsequently arrested in the FIR.
8. The complainant in order to prove the involvement of Vikas Singh driver in the alleged accident by the car in question, has relied upon Ex.C-4 i.e. an application moved by the prosecution for seeking judicial custody of the accused Shri Vikas Singh driver of the offending vehicle. As per the complainant, the vehicle in question was got released on spurdari by the Manager/authorised representative through his power of attorney and after taking the vehicle on spurdari the OP has parked the vehicle with M/s. Tricity Auto workshop in Maruti outlet at Zirakpur and complainant is not aware about the condition of the car, though he has learnt that the car is totally damaged. The complainant has not produced on record any document to show the release of vehicle on spurdari by the OP and subsequently act taken by him. Further the complainant has not even disclosed in the complaint whether he has lodged any claim with the insurance company particularly when he has specific knowledge that the vehicle is totally damaged and is lying with the Tricity Auto Workshop. Therefore, the damage caused to the vehicle in question during the road accident has not been proved by the complainant.
9. The complainant has further pleaded that due to road accident by the car in question, the complainant is made to face MACT claim pending in the courts at Jind (Haryana) as well as State criminal case. The complainant has not placed any document to prove his contention in this regard.
10. The factum that the complainant has booked the vehicle in question for transportation from Mohali to Pune vide consignment note Ex.C-2 and further violation of terms of consignment note having been diverted i.e. not by transportation but by road is proved from the contents of FIR dated 07.07.2015 Ex.C-3 clearly shows an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
11. Next, to determine the quantum of loss suffered by the complainant due to the acts of violation of terms of consignment note by the OP, we would like to refer to Ex.C-2 i.e. the consignment note. The OP has clearly stated in Ex.C-2 “not responsible for damage, breakage and leakage”. In the present case, no loss has been caused to the complainant on account of damage, breakage and leakage but on account of violation of terms of Ex.C-2. Since the complainant has not produced the status of the damaged vehicle or the estimated loss or damage to the accidental vehicle in the road accident and has not further disclosed whether he has received any claim from the insurance company etc., therefore, in the absence of any document on record, it is not possible to assess the quantum of damage the complainant has suffered. However, in order to meet the ends of justice, it will be appropriate to burden the OP with a reasonable and fair compensation in favour of the complainant. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the OP must pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1.00 lac to the complainant.
12. In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the direction to the OP to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) to the complainant for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation. Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
July 19, 2016.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
