BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 658 of 2017

Date of Institution: 19.09.2017

Date of Decision: 29.11.2017  

Rahul Kapur son of Sh.Sh.Satyan Kapoor, resident of 743, Race Course Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

M/s.Aadhunik Packers & Movers Private Limited, Head Office: K-333/2, Old Rajokri Road, Near Telco Service Station, Rangpuri, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037 through its Chairman/ Managing Director/ CEO/ Director/ Principal Officer.

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party : Exparte.

Coram

Mr.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

Ms.Rachna Arora, Member

Order dictated by:

Ms.Rachna Arora,  Member.

1.       The complainant  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is beneficiary of the consignment, household articles sent by his brother Riship Kapur in his favour through Opposite Party’s transport company, which got damaged en-route, hence is covered in the definition of consumer to invoke jurisdiction of this Forum under the Act. The brother of the complainant sent his household goods to the complainant through Opposite Party vide GR No. 2675 dated 22.11.2016 and the Opposite Party assured safe transport and packed the goods from Bangalore of their own and for the shipment, they charged Rs.16970/- which included Rs.14,000/- as transport charges from Bangalore to Amritsar and Rs.2820/- as Insurance charges i.e. insurance of the goods in transit. The goods under transportation of this consignment were packed  by Opposite Parties in packages and the total value of consignment was Rs.94,000/- and the same was declared by consignor brother of the complainant to Opposite Party at the time of handling over the same to Opposite Party with complete detail of goods under consignment.  On 3.12.2016,  it was informed to the complainant by representative of the Opposite Party on telephone that the goods got damaged enroute due to some accident of the vehicle carrying the same, and the goods will be delivered on 4.12.2016. Accordingly, the complainant arrange for surveyor and loss assessor to get loss assessed at the time of taking delivery itself. On 4.12.2016 early in the morning a vehicle No.PB-10H-2991 came to deliver the consignment at the residence of the complainant. Inspection of the goods at the time of unloading of the goods from the said vehicle, it was found that out of eleven boxes, three number of boxes of consignment were having damaged goods i.e. box No.2 containing LED (Television), box No.3 containing photo frames, and box No.5 containing mixer. Accordingly, the representative of Opposite Party made endorsement at the back of the consignment note to this effect. The surveyor, Er.J.S.Malhotra inspected the goods at that time when the representative of the Opposite Party Amar Singh made endorsement with regard to damage to the consignment and the surveyor gave his report dated 5.1.2017 after evaluating the loss that there is a loss of Rs.20,000/- to the items of consignment Rs.3473/- were paid to the said loss assessor for evaluating the loss. After receipt of the report of the said surveyor, the Opposite Party was communicated and were informed with regard to the loss and its assessment, and about insurance aspect of the consignment, but initially they informed the complainant telephonically that they will make the loss good and since now they after repeated calls by complainant stopped entertaining the issue and said act of the Opposite Party of not transporting the consignment safely, and then not making  good the loss occurred during transit, despite the fact that Opposite Party even charged for insurance of consignment of which no detail has been given, is itself gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   The  complainant has prayed for the following reliefs  through the instant complaint.

a)       Opposite Party be directed to remove the deficiency and make the payment of the loss to the consignment to the tune of Rs.23,473/- with interest @ 18% per annum, alongwith compensation of Rs.25,000/- for harassment as well as mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as  cost of complaint.  Any other consequential relief to which the complainant is entitled to under the law, equity, justice and fairplay be also awarded.

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, inspite of due service, none put in appearance on behalf of the Opposite Party   and as such, the Opposite Party  was ordered to be proceeded against exparte. 

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered  his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6 and closed the exparte evidence.

4.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant  and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

5.       From the appraisal of the evidence on record, it becomes evident that the complainant is beneficiary of the consignment, household articles sent by his brother Riship Kapur in his favour through Opposite Party’s transport company, which got damaged en-route, hence is covered in the definition of consumer to invoke jurisdiction of this Forum under the Act. The brother of the complainant sent his household goods to the complainant through Opposite Party vide GR No. 2675 dated 22.11.2016 and the Opposite Party assured safe transport and packed the goods from Bangalore of their own and for the shipment, they charged Rs.16970/- which included Rs.14,000/- as transport charges from Bangalore to Amritsar and Rs.2820/- as Insurance charges i.e. insurance of the goods in transit. The goods under transportation of this consignment were packed  by Opposite Parties in packages and the total value of consignment was Rs.94,000/- and the same was declared by consignor brother of the complainant to Opposite Party at the time of handling over the same to Opposite Party with complete detail of goods under consignment.  On 3.12.2016,  it was informed to the complainant by representative of the Opposite Party on telephone that the goods got damaged enroute due to some accident of the vehicle carrying the same, and the goods will be delivered on 4.12.2016. Accordingly, the complainant arrange for surveyor and loss assessor to get loss assessed at the time of taking delivery itself. On 4.12.2016 early in the morning a vehicle No.PB-10H-2991 came to deliver the consignment at the residence of the complainant. Inspection of the goods at the time of unloading of the goods from the said vehicle, it was found that out of eleven boxes, three number of boxes of consignment were having damaged goods i.e. box No.2 containing LED (Television), box No.3 containing photo frames, and box No.5 containing mixer. Accordingly, the representative of Opposite Party made endorsement at the back of the consignment note to this effect. The surveyor, Er.J.S.Malhotra inspected the goods at that time when the representative of the Opposite Party Amar Singh made endorsement with regard to damage to the consignment and the surveyor gave his report dated 5.1.2017 after evaluating the loss that there is a loss of Rs.20,000/- to the items of consignment Rs.3473/- were paid to the said loss assessor for evaluating the loss. After receipt of the report of the said surveyor, the Opposite Party was communicated and were informed with regard to the loss and its assessment, and about insurance aspect of the consignment, but initially they informed the complainant telephonically that they will make the loss good and since now they after repeated calls by complainant stopped entertaining the issue and said act of the Opposite Party of not transporting the consignment safely, and then not making  good the loss occurred during transit, despite the fact thata Opposite Party even charged for insurance of consignment of which no detail has been given, is itself gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   The evidence produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted on record as  the Opposite Party,  despite due service, did not opt to appear and contest the proceedings. In this way, the Opposite Party  has impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Party  has no defence to offer or defend the complaint.

6.       Further, the perusal of the copy of the report of surveyor dated 5.1.2017 Ex.C2 of Sh.J.S.Malhotra, Surveyor and Loss Assessor shows that he has assessed the net loss at Rs.23,473/- including the surveyor fee of Rs.3473/- and opined that this damage has occurred during transit due to accident of the truck carrying above said consignment.  After that there was absolutely no reason with the Opposite Party to repudiate the genuine claim of the complainant. It has been held by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. B.Ramareddy II(2006) CPJ 339 (NC) that surveyor’s report is an important piece of evidence. Compensation can be awarded only on the basis of surveyor’s report.  Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case Sri Venkateshwar Syndicate Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, II(2010) CPJ 1 (SC) has held that the report of the surveyor is to be given due importance and weightage and it can not be brushed aside without valid reasons.   

7.       Consequently, the instant complaint succeeds  and the Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.23,473/- to the complainant as compensation on the basis of report of surveyor.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order, failing which amount awarded will carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of order until full & final recovery. Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 29.11.2017.               (Rachna Arora)                          (Anoop Sharma)

                                                   Member                      Presiding Member

size:14.0pt'>                                                          Member             Presiding Member