Haryana

Panchkula

cc/540/2019

SH .SUBEDAR RAMPHAL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S ROHILLA TRANSPORT. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

26 Jul 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

 

                                                              

Consumer Complaint No	:	540 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	17.09.2019
Date of Decision	:	26.07.2021

 

 

Sh. Subedar Ramphal S/o Late Sh. Kanwal Singh, R/o Quarter No.1025, Sector- D, Near Shopping Complex, Chandimandir Cantt., District Panchkula, Haryana-134107.

 

                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

M/s Rohilla Transport, situated at Transport Nagar, NIGDI, Pune-411044 through its Proprietor/ Authorized person.                                                              

….Opposite Party

 

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:    Complainant in person. 

                           OP already ex-parte vide order dated 13.11.2019.

                          

ORDER

(Dr. Sushma Garg, Member)

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant is working with Indian Army and he has been recently transferred from Pune, to Chandimandir Cantt, Panchkula. He availed the services of the OP for shifting of his household goods from Pune to Chandimandir, Panchkula. The OP assured the complainant that it will send a separate vehicle for shifting of the complainant’s goods from Pune, Maharashtra to Chandimandir Cantt and that the goods will be packed for shifting and delivered in the house at Chandimandir, Panchkula within 03 days from the day of loading with utmost care. The OP asked for Rs.81,500/-as the transportation charges of complainant’s house hold goods from Pune to Chandimandir Cantt and he had paid the same  including all other expenses including GST & packing, loading of goods etc. and OP had issued receipt vide M.R.No.2259 dated 02.12.2018. The OP loaded the house hold goods of the complainant in Lorry no.PB10-dz-6605 on 02.12.2018 and issued LR No.003034. The OP assured to the complainant that he will deliver the house hold goods at Chandimandir Cantt on or before 06.12.2018. The complainant and his family reached at Chandimandir Cantt on 05.12.2018 but the goods were not delivered on or before 06.12.2018. He waited for his good till 07.12.2018 but the goods were not delivered to him. Due to non availability of his house hold items, the complainant and his family members faced many difficulties. He made many phone calls to the OP and requested him to deliver his goods but every time the OP had made lame excuses. On 12.12.2018, the said booked items were delivered to the complainant but the lorry was different(PB11-BU-9365) from the one, in which the complainant had loaded his household goods. That many of his household items were damaged and the said damages were caused due to shifting his household items from one lorry to another. When the complainant inquired in this matter from Mr.Angrej Singh, the driver of the vehicle, he informed that the delivering lorry belonged to some other transporter and not of the Rohilla Transport i.e. OP. Immediately after seeing the damaged goods, the complainant talked with the OP and told him about the damaged items. The OP asked for the photos of the damaged goods/ items which were sent to the OP through whatsapp/messenger. After seeing the photos of damaged goods, the official of the OP assured the complainant that they will pay for the damages soon. The complainant calculated the cost of damages at Rs.60,000/- and the OP was accordingly informed. The list of the damaged items and their cost has been mentioned in the complaint which is reproduced as under:-

Sr. No.	Name of the Damaged items	Cost of Damaged items
1.	Steel Almirah Big Size-1 no.	Rs.10,000/-
2.	Steel Boxes-05 Nos.(Rs.2000/- each)	Rs.10,000/-
3.	Bike(Damaged both Mud Guards, Left indicator, side shield	Rs.8,000/-
4.	Shitcase-1	Rs.3,000/-
5.	Shoe Rack-1	Rs.1,000/-
6.	Matress-2(Rs.2500/- each)	Rs.5,000/-
7.	07 Seater Sofa Set	Rs.23,000/-

 

          Further, the OP told the complainant that they would pay the loss after making inquiry from the driver of the vehicle Mr.Angrej Singh, through which the goods of the complainant were delivered but till date, the OP has neither paid for the loss of the complainant nor paid any heed to the requests of the complainant.  Even, the GST invoice has not been issued to the complainant which is needed to the complainant for claiming the reimbursement of the expenditure from the office/Government Department. The complainant has suffered a great financial loss, mental agony and harassment. The said act and conduct of OP amounts to deficiency in service and there is unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Notice was issued to the OP through registered post no. CH036588985IN on 03.10.2019, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of Op, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide its order dated 13.11.2019.

3.               To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

                  During the course of arguments, the complainant has submitted a photocopy of entry register maintained at the gate of the cantonment which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ for the proper adjudication of the case.

4.               We have heard the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file.

5.               In this complaint the complainant has made two folds claim against the OP firstly, the OP has failed to deliver the household goods in time and due to the late delivery of the goods, the complainant has to face inconvenience and difficulties at his newly shifted house at Chandimandir, Panchkula. Secondly, the goods were transferred from the vehicle in which the goods were loaded to another vehicle in violation of the agreed terms and against the consent of the complainant. Due to the above said shifting of the goods from one vehicle to another many goods got damaged and the damaged has been quantified by the complainant as Rs.60,000/-. Thirdly, the OP has failed to deliver the GST invoice of Rs.81,500/- to the complainant.

6.               The OP did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against them. The non-appearance of the OP despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in his defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.               On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure CA, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and Mark ‘A’.

8.               In view of the fact that the OP has neither responded to the notice nor it opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OP had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. We agree with the averments made by the complainant that the vehicle, in which the goods were loaded, and were sealed/locked, then it should have been unlocked only on reaching its destination at Chandimandir in the presence and to the satisfaction of the complainant that his luggage had not been opened or interfered with during the transit.

9.               In view of the aforementioned factual position, it is the irresistible conclusion that OP failed to adhere to the time schedule regarding delivery of the household goods at Panchkula and that OP has been found rendering deficient services while transferring of the household goods from vehicle no. PB10-DZ-6605 to PB11-BU-9365 without the consent and knowledge of the complainant thereby causing damages to the household goods.  Therefore, the complainant is entitled to relief.

10.    In the present complaint the following relief has been claimed:-

         a)      To direct the OP to pay the amount of Rs.60,000/- toward the  expenses incurred upon the damage caused to complainant’s goods  by the OP.

         b)      To direct the OP to pay additional Rs.50,000/- compensation for  physical harassment, mental agony, inconvenience, undue awkward    problems and financial loss suffered by the complainant.

         c)      To direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of   litigation.

         d)      To direct the OP to provide GST Invoice of Rs.81,500/- to the     complainant.

 

11.             During the course of hearing, it has been stated that he has received a sum of Rs.81,500/- qua the bill amount(Annexure C-1); hence no direction is required to provide the GST invoice amounting to Rs.81,500/- to the complainant. Regarding the damages to the household goods a sum of Rs.60,000/- has been claimed but no proof except some photographs (Annexure C-3) has been adduced on record. However, in our opinion, it would meet the ends of the justice, if a sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded to the complainant on account of damages to household goods, which occurred during transportation. 

12.    As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions against opposite party:-

 

1. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant, for causing damages to the household goods in violation of the agreed terms and conditions, as well as delayed delivery of goods at Chandimandir, Panchkula, Haryana.

2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

 13.            The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, against the OP. 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:26.07.2021

 

              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.

                                              Dr. Sushma Garg

                                                Member