Date of Complaint  : 21.04.2011

                                                                 Date of Order         : 29.01.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT :    THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM, M.A.M.L.,                  :  PRESIDENT                     

                     TMT.K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                :  MEMBER – I

                     DR.T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.No. 374  / 2011

THIS  FRIDAY  29^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2016

D. Kumar,

S/o. N.Durai,

No.133, New Street,

Otthakadai,

Cantonment,

Tiruchirapalli.                                                     .. Complainant.

                                                         - Vs-

For the complainants                    :   M/s. J. Ramakrishnan & others        

For the opposite parties                         :   Exparte   

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,   ::    MEMBER-I

           Complaint under section 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages   to the complainant.   

1.     Even after receipt of the notice from this forum in this proceeding, the opposite party did not appear before this Forum and did not file any  written version.  Hence, the opposite party was set exparte on  23.4.2012.   

2.     Perused the complaint, and the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12    filed by the complainant  and proof affidavit and the entire C.C. records and considered the arguments of the complainant counsel. 

3.     The complainant contended that on 18.8.2010 he approached the 2^nd opposite party and sought for information about packers and movers Companies for carrying  his house hold articles from Chennai to Trichy. The 2^nd opposite party communicated the address of the 1^st opposite party and given guarantee that they would render best service to the complainant.  When the complainant contacted the  1^st opposite party they assured  to deliver the articles within 8 hours at the destination point through covered full truck for carrying articles and offered to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- as service charges.    Accordingly the complainant paid a sum of Rs.1000/- to the 1^st opposite party as advance.  On 27.8.2010 the 1^st opposite party sent a covered truck bearing registration No.TN01-W-7477 and four boys for loading the articles.    The said persons had not packed the articles in orderly manner so as to avoid collision with each other in the course of journey and consequential damage to them.    The complainant did not heed to the system of packing and loading as the truck was fully covered.   At the loading point in Chennai the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.6,000/- for which the 1^st opposite party issued receipt in the name of Pack World Packers and Movers instead of in the name his company.   The truck reached Trichy in the early morning on 29.8.2010.   The valuable articles of the complainant were transshipped from two vehicles in disorderly manner and there by vast and extensive damage was caused to those articles.  The complainant and his family members underwent traumatic pain on seeing the condition of the articles.  

4.     The complainant contended that the articles loaded in the vehicle suffered damages and they are as follows:

1.  Leakage of gas in the new split AC.

2. The rear side of the Bureau extensively dented.

3. 500 litre plastic water drum fully broken.

4. Deep Scratch to the washing machine and Dining table.

5. Dining table stool broken.

The complainant further contended that of the loaded articles some of the articles were found missing and they are as follows:     

1.  5 litres of petrol were stolen from two wheeler.

2. 4.5. kg dumbbell.

3. Baby Bicycle.

4. A pair of thick carton boxes used for packing.

5. Five nos. of Wall poster.

6. One of the handles of S.S. container broken and missed.

7. Sleeping matt are worth of Rs.50,000/-

5.     The complainant contended that he informed the opposite party about the grievances but the opposite party not responded to his grievance.    The 1^st opposite party as a bailee  of the goods and 2^nd opposite party as a sponsor of the 1^st opposite party are liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant.   Hence he issued legal notice to the opposite party to pay damages to him.   But the opposite party did not sent any reply even after receipt of the notice.  Hence he filed the above complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay damages for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and to pass further orders.

6.     The main grievance of the complainant in this complaint is that when the house hold articles were carried from Chennai to Trichy by the 1^st opposite party’s truck he came to know that some of the complaint mentioned articles suffered damages as well as some of the articles were found missing when they were unloaded at Trichy.     Ex.A1 is the estimation given by the 1^st opposite party for transportation of the articles from Trichy to Chennai.  No full fledged inventory has been produced by the complainant for the used household articles which were transported.    Wherein only some of the household articles were stated in the caption “List of articles”.  On perusing the list of articles stated by the complainant which suffered damages namely leakage of gas in the new split A/c  the complainant had not pleaded anywhere in the complaint or in his proof affidavit that the person of the  1^st opposite party removed the A/c for loading in the vehicle.   As such the allegation attributed against the 1^st opposite party for leakage of the gas in the split A/c is not sustainable.    Regarding the other damages met out to other articles on perusing the Exs.7 i.e. photographs it reveals that there is some damage caused to certain articles but it seems that the damages caused to the said articles sometimes may happen during transport.  Never the less while transport the 1^st opposite party ought to have taken due care in delivering the articles safely.  But the 1^st opposite party failed to do so.  Ex.A10 i.e. Video file filed by the complainant is in broken condition as such it cannot be taken as evidence.  Hence the contention of the complainant that he suffered some loss of damage to certain articles  due to the deficiency in service of the 1^st opposite party is acceptable.  

7.     Further the grievance of the complainant is that some articles were found missing during transport.     In the list of missing articles for one of the article namely Baby bicycle the driver of the truck has made an endorsement in Ex.A4 that the baby tricycle is missing and signed the same.   Hence it proves that the baby cycle was missing while unloading.  As such the 1^st opposite  party is liable to compensate the complainant for the missing bicycle but the complainant had not stated the value of the said article.  Regarding the other missing articles no proof has been produced by the complainant to establish the same.  Moreover it reveals that the complainant had not lodged any police complaint against the opposite party for the missing articles.    

8.     However the complainant had given legal notice dated 13.9.2010 i.e. Ex.A5 to the opposite parties which was received by them but they failed to send any reply.  

9.     From the above facts and circumstances it reveals that there was some damage caused to certain household articles of the complainant and certain articles were missing during transport by the 1^st opposite party which shows that if the 1^st opposite party would have taken due care in loading the articles the said occurrence might not have happened.  As such the 1^st opposite party has committed deficiency of service.   Hence the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay reasonable compensation to the loss suffered by the complainant due to the damages caused to the household articles as well as missing articles. 

10.    The complainant himself had admitted that he approached the 2^nd opposite party seeking information about the Packers and Movers companies for which the 2^nd opposite party only communicated the address of the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant engaged the 1^st opposite party at his own instance and as such the complainant had not availed the service of the 2^nd opposite party for consideration.   Therefore the 2^nd opposite party is an unnecessary party in this complaint.  Hence the relief sought for against the 2^nd opposite party is not sustainable and the complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.   

11.    From the above facts and circumstances we are of the considered view that the 1^st opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the loss incurred by the complainant due to deficiency of service and also for mental agony caused to the complainant as well as cost of the complaint to the complainant.   Since the compensation claimed by the complainant is exorbitant  he is entitled only for just and reasonable compensation. 

        In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.   The 1^st opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand and five hundred only) as cost of litigation  to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the above compensation amount (Rs.10,000/)  shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order  passed till the date of realization and accordingly this complaint against the 2^nd opposite party is dismissed.   

                Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29^th    day of  January   2016.

MEMBER-I                                        MEMBER-II                                           PRESIDENT.

Complainants’ Side documents :

Ex.A1- 21.8.2010      - Copy of the Estimation given by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A2-                    -        - Copy of the 2^nd Opposite party communicated the complainant about

                               The 1^st opposite party for the service and assured guarantee.

Ex.A3-                    -        - Copy of Estimation given by the other packers and movers.

Ex.A4- 27.8.2010      - Copy of receipt given by the 1^st opposite party with endorsement

                               Of Baby tricycle is missing.

Ex.A5- 13.9.2010      - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A6-                    -        - Copy of Postal receipt.

Ex.A7-                    -        - Photos of damaged articles.

Ex.A8-                    -        - Photo.

Ex.A9-                    -        - Photo.

Ex.A10-         -        - C.D.

Ex.A11- 13.9.2010     - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A12-         -        - Copy of Postal Acknowledgment with Postal receipt.

Opposite parties’  side documents: -  

 .. Nil ..   (exparte)

MEMBER-I                                         MEMBER-II                                          PRESIDENT.