Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

102/2012

S.Punnaivanam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Sri Thangam Packers & Movers - Opp.Party(s)

Party in person

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

                                      Date of Filing :   11.01.2012
                                 Date of Order :   09.03.2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
     2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT             
                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I
               DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.102/2012
THURSDAY THIS 9th  DAY OF MARCH 2017

S. Punnaivanam, 
H-147, TNHB Colony, 
Tenkasi 627 811.                                       ..Complainant

                                              ..Vs..

M/s. Sri Thangam Packers & Movers, 
No.34, Maruteeshwarar 
Complex ECR Road, 
Thiruvamiyur, 
Chennai 600 041.                               ..Opposite party. 

For the Complainant               :    Party in person       
For the opposite party                 :    M/s. A.Perumal Raju (Exparte). 

ORDER
THIRU.   T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN ::    MEMBER-II       
This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.27,430/- as loss for the damage of the goods and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant. 

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows: 
      The complainant had packed and loaded his house hold materials from Vadapalani, Chennai in a mini lorry at around 3.00 p.m. on 10.12.2011.    The opposite party assured since it is a joint one and it will take 24 hours to reach Tenkasi without fail it will be delivered on 11.12.2011.   The same day night the complainant’s family left from Chennai to Tenkasi by Pothigai Express train.   
2.    The complainant further submit that he was waiting for the lorry which carries his house hold material upto 15th December,  it has not reached destination.   Inspite of several requests made by the complainant the opposite party gave irresponsible reply and the said goods were delivered at Thenkasi on 17.12.2011 without any unloading person.    As such the act of the opposite party  amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   Hence the complaint. 

3.    Since  the opposite party remained exparte this  Forum has decided to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials.  
4.    In such circumstances,  in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the complainant filed his proof affidavit as evidence and  and also Ex.A1 to Ex.A4   marked.  
5.    At this juncture the point for consideration before this Forum is: 
1.    Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite  party as alleged in the complaint?. 

2.    To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled for? 
6. Point Nos. 1 & 2 :- 
     The complainant had dispatched house hold articles containing 47 numbers as per  Ex.A2 and took an estimation from the opposite party (Ex.A1) about the freight charges, packing and unloading charges.   It is clearly stated in the estimation slip of the opposite party  vide invoice No.13466 that to  the complainant, if there is any dispute on the jurisdiction, the cause of action for institution of the case,  any litigation arising out of and concerning this transaction will only lie within the course / Forum situated in Chennai limit alone. Accordingly the complainant had filed this complaint in this forum on 11.1.2012 and the cause of action arose on 9.1.2011 which satisfies the period of limitation.  As against the agreed amount of Rs.9,500/- to the carrier he had paid only Rs.8600/- and balance amount was paid to the driver on 17.12.2011.   while delivering the consigner.    
7.    It is alleged by the complainant that he had dispatched the consignment to the opposite party vide Ex.A3 under consigner Note No.014, dated 9.12.2011 and it has delivered at Thenkasi on 17.12.2011. the contention of the complainant  delayed delivery of the consignment which is departed from Chennai on 9.12.2011 taking inordinate delay in delivering the goods and which has caused mental agony and monitory loss because of the failure of the delivery of the goods by the opposite party.    Hence he prayed a loss for the damage of the goods Rs.27,430/- and for mental agony Rs.1,20,000/- totaling Rs.1,47,430/-.    
8.    The notice was served to the opposite party but inspite of several reminders the opposite party had not turned to the forum expressing his inability in answering the demands raised by the complainant and he neither submitted his written version nor his affidavit to this forum he was set exparte on 14.12.2012.   The complainant had regularly representing himself in the forum and submitting his proof affidavit, documents and written arguments for the period of two years neither the complainant nor the opposite party appeared before this forum and  oral arguments was closed on 9.3.2017.   
9.    Pursuant on the complaint, documents, written arguments and proof affidavit, we found in the consignment note “there is no mention about the lorry on which the consignment was delivered from Chennai to Thenkasi.  On reverse side of the consignment note the driver who carried the consignment endorsed serial No.7 of the within mentioned declaration form T.V. packed  in the cotton box missed and serial No.22 of the packing list wired chair missed”  wherein the complainant had claimed four items in his complaint.    
10.    As per carrier Act the consignee has to claim the real loss from the consigner by way of a registered letter as an evidence which was not submitted to this forum.  The consignment note clearly states it is an owners risk, insurance, delivery instruction.   It is silent about any insurance cover was taken at the time of dispatch by the complainant and if so the complainant is silent about in this regard.    The complainant had not submitted the damage certificate obtained from the carrier confirming the actual loss sustained by him in this transit.  The complainant himself confirmed in his complaint under para-3 and in his written arguments and proof affidavit “in this troubled time “Mullai Peryaru” they have taken my article to Kerala causing abnormal delay and damage.  The lorry with my article   came to my place on 17.12.2011 (7th day)”, it proves the delay is not intentionally made by the opposite party.  With his foregoing findings we found that the opposite party had not committed any breach the delay has happened because of troubled time in Mullai Peryaru which was unavoidable.  The complainant had not substantiated his claim  neither by sending a legal notice nor claiming any damages from the opposite party by way of letter or submitting the damage certificate obtained from the carrier to substantiate his demand.    Further, it  is observed  that the complainant has not moved this forum with clean hand, by suppressing various material facts to substantiate his claim.   Hence this complaint is dismissed.  No cost. Thus points 1 & 2 are answered accordingly. 
    In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.  
    Dictated by the Member-II to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  9th   day  of  March  2017.

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents: 
Ex.A1- 10.11.2011    - Copy of transporter estimation. 
Ex.A2- 10.12.2011    - Copy of Declaration 49 Articles. 
Ex.A3- 10.12.2011    - Copy of Consignor back side which lorry driver signed in 
                             Consigner. 
Ex.A4-     -    - Copy of the claim letter.  

Opposite party’s side documents:   .. Nil. 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.