This C.C. is coming on before us for hearing in the presence of          Sri. Aitham Ravindra, Advocate for Complainant; Notice refused by Opposite party No.1 and complaint against Opposite party No.2 is dismissed; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following order;

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant was booked a consignment vide its No.515578 on 19-12-2008 to shift his household articles, containing 88 packages from Baroda to Manuguru of Andhra Pradesh.   The opposite party No.1 assured that the entire packages will be shifted in one truck with escort, for which, it collected Rs.30,000/- towards transportation charges.  The consignment was reached to the complainant on 26-12-2008 without escort.  While unloading, the complainant was observed that some articles were damaged and some were missed i.e. the leg of the Black wooden Sofa was broken in condition and the carton numbers 13,14, 35 and 36 were in open condition.   After verification, it was found that Samsung CD Player worth of Rs.4,500/-, one stainless steel gas stove worth of Rs. 2,500/-  and steel drum cost of Rs.1,000/- were also missed.  Immediately, it was informed to the marketing executive of opposite party No.1 through phone and after repeated remainders, the opposite party No.2 registered the complainant vide No.AHM10.  Thereafter, the opposite party No.2 informed that they intend to pay Rs.550/- towards compensation.  The complainant submitted that it is unjust and by informing the same to the opposite parties, filed the present complaint by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and prayed to pay Rs.30,000/- towards cost of damaged three seated black Wooden Sofa, Rs,4,500/- towards loss of Samsung CD Player, Rs.2,500/- towards loss of Steel Gas Stove, Rs.1,000/- for cost of Steel Drum and Rs.15,000/- towards miscellaneous charges in total he prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.53,000/- towards total compensation.  

3.      In support of his case, the complainant filed the following documents, those were marked as Exhibits under Ex. A1 to A15.

4.      After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties, the opposite party No.1 refused to receive the notice, it is deemed that the service of notice is held sufficient.  The notice of opposite party No.2 not returned.  Even after several adjournments were given, the complainant is failed to furnish the correct address of Opposite party No.2.  Hence the complaint against Opposite party No.2 is dismissed by this Forum on 28-11-2014.

5.      In view of the above circumstances, now the point that arose for consideration is; Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-

          According the contents of complaint and the material on record, It is fact that the complainant was booked a consignment from Baroda to Manuguru of Andhra Pradesh on 19-12-2008 by paying Rs.31,000/- towards consignment charges, evidenced under exhibits A2 to A4.  As per exhibits A5 to A10 it is also a fact that some articles were missed in transit and one black Wooden Sofa was damaged, for which, the complainant made many representations to the opposite parties through E-mails on his grievance.  After 4 months, the opposite parties sent an E-mail by stating that they intend to pay Rs.550/- towards compensation for loss of goods, evidenced under Exhibit A13.  It is the case of the complainant that he lost Rs.38,000/- worth of articles in transit i.e. in the custody of opposite parties, therefore, prayed to pay compensation towards loss but the opposite parties offered to pay a meager amount of Rs.550/- towards total compensation, that too after passing of 4 months.  We feel that it is unjust and also amounts to deficiency of service and as such the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation for loss of goods as the opposite parties failed to deliver the articles with care and caution.  In the present case, while unloading the packages from the truck, the consignor / complainant noticed that the leg of the black Wooden Sofa was broken and the carton No.13,14,35 and 36 were in open condition and after verifying those cartons, he observed that Samsung CD Player worth of Rs.4,500/-, Steel Gas Stove worth of Rs.2,500/- and Steel Drum worth of Rs.1,000/- were missed.    In view of the aforesaid facts, we feel that it is a fit case to award some compensation to the complainant towards damages.  Therefore, the point is answered accordingly in favour of the complainant by holding that the opposite parties are liable to pay damages towards loss of goods in transit.   

6.      In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- towards loss of goods and Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest @9% P.A..  The complaint against opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

          Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open Forum, on this the 20^th day of January, 2015.

              FAC President              Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant:-                                                 For Opposite party:-   

       -None-                                                                       -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

For Complainant:-                                                           For Opposite party:-   

FAC President              Member

District Consumer Forum, Khammam.