Complaint filed on: 14-09-2012
Disposed on: 04-01-2013
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.1884/2012
DATED THIS THE 4th JANUARY 2013
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SMT.NIVEDITHA.J, MEMBER
Complainant: -
Sri.Sanjay Swarup
S/o Late.Shiv Swarup Srivastav,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at House No.37,
LG Enclave, Nanjappa Circle
Vidyaranyapura Post
BANGALORE - 560 097
V/s
Opposite party: -
M/s.Agarwal Packers & Movers,
A Unit of DRS Logistics (p) Ltd,
Gowdown No.166,
4th Cross, Lalbagh Road, K S Garden
Bangalore-560 027
Retd by its Manager/MD
ORDER
SMT.NIVEDITHA.J, MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OP, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act’1986, praying to pass an order, directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.1,56,500=00 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, and cost in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.
The complainant is working in Bharat Electronics Limited, and on his transfer from Pune to Bangalore, he had approached the opposite party on 3-11-2011, for shifting of the house hold goods of 116 packers from Pune to Bangalore. On 3-11-2011, the OP has accepted the same at Pune office under the G.C.Note No.4201964 and received a sum of Rs.38,500=00 towards the transport charges from the complainant. On 7-11-2011, the OP has delivered the house hold items at Bangalore, but SL.No.111 box was not at all delivered to the complainant and other boxes were delivered and some of the items were in a damaged conditions, and accordingly, the complainant has given a list of items which were in the box SL.No.111, and also made a note in his letter that, since all the boxes are not opened fully, and any other items missing/found would be informed later and stated the broken/damaged items and approximately valued at total loss of Rs.25,000=00 and lodged the claim for a sum of Rs.25,000=00 on 8-11-2011. The complainant has waited for the reply of the OP. But in the meantime, the first week of December 2011, the complainant father passed away in the native place of the complainant and he could not concentrate in this regard. At the time of arranging the house hold items, the complainant has found that not only the materials complained of on 7-11-2011, but also the dress materials and others things were lost after assessing the loss of the items of Rs.50,000=00. The complainant has approached the OP to settle his claims through e-mails. Accordingly, the OP has offered to settle the complainant claim for a amount of Rs.5,000=00 in the beginning and later comes to Rs. 10,000=00, for which the complainant did not agree for the same. The complainant made number of correspondences through e-mails, but they have failed to settle the claim of Rs.50,000=00 towards the loss and damage of the items. On 16-07-2012, the complainant has issued a legal notice to the opposite party, calling upon the OP to settle the claim of the complainant. But they failed to comply. Hence, the present complaint is filed.
3. After filing the complaint, notice was issued to the OP. The notice issued to the OP was returned as duly served, and OP was called out absent and placed him exparte.
4. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint. The complainant produced consignor copy, packing list, and email copies of correspondence with OP. We have heard the arguments of the complainant’s side, and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant in between line.
5. So from the averments of the complaint of complainant, the following points arise for our consideration.
1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency
in service on the part of the OP?
2. What order, the complainant is entitled for?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
Point no.1: In the affirmative
Point no.2: For the following order
REASONS
7. After going through the documents produced by the complainant, there is no doubt that, the complainant has engaged the service of the OP on 03-11-2011, carriages to transport his house hold goods of 116 packages from Pune to Bangalore, and the complainant has paid for Rs.38,500=00 to the OP under the G.C.Note No.4201964. The complainant in support of his claim has produced consignor copies, a bill for having paid Rs.38,500=00 to the OP. The OP has issued the consignor copy and 116 items with list, which were the packed by him. The opposite party has promised that the goods will be delivered on 7-11-2011. On 7-11-2011, the complainant has received the goods except the Sl.no.111 box and the complainant has found that several valuable articles are damaged.
8. Immediately, the complainant has approached the opposite party. In consignor copy, the OP was written that “Delivery made by different truck than on which loaded. All but one items (Sl.No.111) received. Item value of Rs.25,000/- as per enclosed list found missing/damaged”. The document No.2 show that, the OP was listed the missing/damaged items along with value and the approximate expenditure value is Rs.25,000=00. The OP also made a note in the document no.2 that, “since all the boxes are not yet opened fully, above is tentative list. Any other missing found items will be informed later”. On fist week of December, the complainant’s father passed away, the complainant has unable to open other boxes. Thereafter, the complainant has opened other boxes; he found that the dress materials and other things were lost, and after assessing the loss of the items to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.
9. The complainant has made several corresponding with the OP and requested them to settle the claims immediately through emails. Accordingly, the OP also made number of correspondences through e-mails and they have offered to settle the complainant claim for a very meager amount of Rs.5,000=00, and later comes to Rs.10,000=00. The complainant was not agreed for the same. None of the allegations in the complaint is denied or challenged by the opposite party. The opposite parties being the responsible packers and movers, was bound to transport the goods as per consignment and should have delivered the same in a proper manner and in good condition. The complainant was lost several items which were packed in a box at Sl.no111, which was entrusted to the OP carriages and also some of the items were damaged condition. The OP carriages while entrusting all the items, consisting of 116 boxes, they had promised that the entire items would be delivered without any damage or loss, but the OP carriages have failed to deliver the same in full and without any damaged. It shows that, the opposite parties have violated the terms and conditions of agreement and thereby committed deficiency in service. Accordingly, we hold that, the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
10. As found from the correspondences particularly the letter of the OP, we find that, there was no dispute between the parties with regard to entrustment of house hold articles to the OP for transportation and total amount paid. On perusal of the evidence of the complainant and the documents, he has produced particularly his e-mail letter and the reply of the OP; we are not finding any doubt with regard to the entrustment of house hold articles to the OP for transportation. The OP though was given opportunity to appear and file objection if any he has not cared to avail such an opportunity. Therefore, we hold that, the complainant has proved the deficiency in service of OP in transporting the entrusted goods.
11. The complainant himself as worked out the loss due to damage as Rs.50,000=00. He has claimed Rs.50,000=00 as damages for deficiency of the OP. The complainant had given declaration on 7-11-2011, and in the said declaration, he has shown the value of the missing items of Rs.25,000=00. So, as per the declaration given by the complainant himself the value of box is Rs.25,000=00. The document No.2 clearly shows that, declared value of the items. Thereafter, he found that dress materials and other things were lost. The complainant has stated in the complaint the value of missing items as Rs.50,000=00. The complainant has not given particulars of the missing items and their prices. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that Rs.50,000=0 worth property was kept in box. There is no proper proof of the value of missing items of the boxes. So, the total value of the missing boxes will be Rs.25,000=00 and not Rs.50,000=00. The complainant will be entitled to Rs.25,000=00 from the opposite party. The Complainant has claimed the value of the goods as per invoice. So, the complainant is entitled for the value of goods of Rs.25,000=00 as per invoice. The material evidence placed by complainant has remained uncontroverted. Therefore considering claim of the complainant on the back ground of oral and documentary evidence, we find no hesitation to allow the complaint partly, and accordingly, we answer this point. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.
The OP is directed to pay a sum Rs.25,000=00 to the complainant with 9% interest per annum.
The OP is further directed to pay Rs.2,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
The OP shall pay the said amount to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this, the 4th day of January 2013.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
