Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

140/2014

K.Subbiah,S/o.T.Kalyana Sundaram, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Chennai Packers & Movers,Rep by its Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

R.Venkata Varadhan

27 Feb 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  15.07.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  27.02.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

MONDAY  THE 27^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017

 

C.C.NO.140/2014

 

 

K.Subbiah,

S/o.T.Kalyana Sundaram,

No.10/244, Gandhi Nagar,

Pavoorchathram,

Tirunelveli District.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

M/s. Chennai Packers & Movers,

Rep by its Manager,

25/1. JPR Palace, 200 Feet,

Innorring Road,

Dr.Ambedkar Nagar,

Kullathur,

Chennai – 600 099.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 17.07.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : R.Venkata Varathan

Counsel for    Opposite Party                   : K.Sudha

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party to deliver the missed items of the consignment and compensation for mental agony cost with litigation expenses u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Party inspected the households of the Complainant and quoted Rs.14,000/- on separate basis. The quotation is vide No.6501 dated 21.03.2014. The Complainant has paid a sum of Rs.14,000/- on 22.03.2014 and all the materials of him were handed over to the Opposite Party and they have packed it on 22.03.2014 itself and agreed to deliver it on 23.03.2014. The Complainant thought, if the materials are delivered on 23.03.2014 he would be conveniently board the train on 24.03.2014 for Bombay from Tirunelveli. The Opposite Party has not shifted the materials on separate basis as agreed but loaded the materials along with various other consignments  deloaded at Madurai and reloaded from Madurai and ultimately delivered the materials only on 26.03.2014 at 12.30 pm. As against the contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party has shared the consignment of the Complainant with the some other consignment and has also caused delay in delivering the consignment. Since the Opposite Party has not delivered the consignment on 23.03.2014 as assured, the Complainant could not take up his Journey for Bombay and he lost the Job likely to get in TATA Projects Ltd., and believing that he would join at TATA he has also given up the Job at Chennai. It is all due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the Opposite Party. Apart from that out of 56 packages, items No.18, 19, 20 (3+1+ Sofa Set) and items No.33, 35,36 and 56 were all missed and undelivered to the Complainant and the missed packages are worth about Rs.2,00,000/-. Hence all act of the Opposite Party  amounts to negligence and deficiency in service and unfair practice and caused great mental agony to him. The Complainant has issued a legal notice dated 28.03.2014 to the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party issued a reply notice dated 22.04.2014 by admitting the missing consignment and denying the late delivery with untenable contentions. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to deliver the missed items and also for compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint. 

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The matter in dispute would be resolved by way of arbitration. As per clause No.14 of the terms and conditions, the Opposite Party admits that they received the amount towards transportation charges as per the quotation issued to the Complainant, but the Opposite Party never promised to the Complainant to deliver the consignment on 23.03.2014 as the vehicle had to travel  to different districts. The consignment note also contains the terms  and conditions for transport of the goods and the Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party never promised that the consignment will reach Pavoorchathram on the specific day and they are not aware of the Complainant to board the train to Bombay form Tirunelveli. It is submitted that after taking the consignment and on the way to Pavoorchathram, the lorry got struck down with engine problem and hence the driver could not move the vehicle from that place and hence the Opposite Party delivered the material on 26.03.2014 at 12.30 p.m and in fact they have taken diligent steps to deliver the goods as early as possible and hence there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. The Complainant had packed only 52 packages and out of 52 packages 49 items were promptly delivered to him and item Nos.18,19,20 (3+1+1 Sofa Set) also delivered to the Complainant on 04.08.2014 which has been duly acknowledged by the Complainant. The items No. 33,35, 36 is concerned  there was double entry made in the list of goods and some of the items were wrongly despatched along with the Complainant’s consignment and after that he had returned the items.  Hence the Complaint is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed with costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The Complainant was working in Chennai as a Engineer and he had  an opportunity to work in M/s Tata  Projects  Limited in Mumbai and he decided to shift all his household articles from Urapakkam  to Pavoorchathram. The Opposite Party quoted Ex.A1 quotation to shift of things a sum of Rs.12,000/- in the common vehicle and a sum of Rs.14,000/- in a separate vehicle. The Complainant opted for Rs.14,000/-  and he had also booked his goods under Ex.A2 consignment on 23.03.2014 and the Opposite Party agreed to deliver on the next day. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.14,000/- under Ex.A3 towards transporting charges for 52  items under Ex.A4 declaration. However, the goods were not delivered on the next day and the Opposite Party delivered only on 26.03.2014 at 12.20 p.m with some of missing goods. Next  day the Complainant contacted that some of the items 18,19,20,33, 35 & 36 are all missing at the time of delivery and further as assured he had not delivered on 23.03.2014 and delivered only on 26.03.2014 belatedly 3 days and therefore  the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service.

          5. The Opposite Party replied that he never assured that the goods will be delivered on the next day and further while the consignment on the way the lorry got struck with engine problem and therefore the goods was delivered on 26.03.2014 and further item No.18,19,20 was later delivered on 04.08.2014 and  Ex,B1  prove the same and further item No.33,35, & 36 are double entry and therefore the Opposite Party has not committed deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          6. There is no proof on behalf of the Complaint that the Opposite Party agreed to deliver on the next day. Hence the Opposite Party belatedly delivered on 26.03.2014 with regard to items delivered on the date cannot be considered as deficiencies. However items 18,19,20 was delivered only on 04.08.2014 that too after filing the Complaint before this Forum  with a delay of one year 4 months. This delay is certainly deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party. With regard to items 33,34,36 the Opposite Party contented that it was double entry. This fact was pleaded in the written version specifically was not denied by the Complainant in his subsequently filed proof affidavit. Therefore we hold that as contended by the Opposite Party item No.34,35,36 is only a double entry and with regard to that the same was not delivered is not acceptable. However, as discussed above the item Nos.18,19,20 was delivered belatedly  after one year 4 months is deficiency on the part of this Opposite Party  even after receiving their charges, it is held that the Opposite Party committed deficiency in service.

 

 

7. POINT NO:2

          The Complainant given up his job at Chennai and unable to join at Bombay due to delay in delivery of consignment is not accepted for the reason that the Complainant has not filed any proof for the same. Considering the delay in delivering 3 items of goods the Complainant suffered with mental agony for more than a year is accepted and for the same it would be appropriate to order to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is ordered to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony , besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 27^th day of February 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 21.03.2014                   Quotation issued by the Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated 22.03.2014                   Consignment Note bearing No.6339 issued by

                                                    Opposite Party

 

Ex.A3 dated 22.03.2014                   Cash receipt issued by Opposite Party

Ex.A4 dated 22.03.2014                   List of Articles issued by Opposite Party

Ex.A5 dated 27.03.2014                   Letter issued by Opposite Party to the Complainant

Ex.A6 dated 28.03.2014                   Legal notice issued by the Complainant

Ex.A7 dated 01.04.2014                   Acknowledgement Card

Ex.A8 dated 22.04.2014                   Reply notice issued by the Opposite Party

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 27.03.2014                   Letter  from the Opposite Party to the Complainant

 

Ex.B2 dated 04.08.2014                   Consignment Note of the Opposite Party

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT