Orissa

Cuttak

CC/263/2022

Sadanand Bag - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narendra Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

B K Mishra & associates

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.263/2022

 

Sadanand Bag,

S/o: Dr. Keshab Lal Bag,

At:2E/377,Sector-13,C.D.A,Cuttack,

Odisha-753015.

                                                                                          ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.     Narendra Sharma,Westin Packers & Movers Pvt Ltd.,

Kh.No.1126 E,B-Block,Old Shiv Mandir,

Rangpuri Extn.,Mahipalpur

New Delhi-110037.

 

2.     Susanta Behera,Peaceful Packers & Movers,

P.S:Laxmi Sagar,Bomikhal,Canal Road,

Govind Prasad,Bhubaneswar-751017.                        ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

   Present:      Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

          Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

  Date of filing:    22.12.2022

  Date of Order:  30.11.2023

 

  For the complainant:           Mr. B.K.Mishra,Adv. & Associates.

     For the O.Ps                :          None.

 

     Sri Debasish Nayak,President

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had hired the services of O.P.No.1 on 23.7.2022 for shifting his household articles from H-69, 1^st Floor, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi to 2E/377,Sector-13,CDA,Cuttack,Odisha for a consideration of Rs.65,000/- including insurance coverage of Rs.1,00,000/-.  It was decided that on 24.7.2022 the shifting of the household articles would be operated after those being packed properly so as to ensure that the articles are not damaged.  It was further agreed that the items would be delivered within 7 to 8 days thereafter and in case of any damage, the insurance claim would be of Rs.1,00,000/-.  On 24.7.2022, O.P no.1 had shifted the household articles of the complainant and the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.5000/- towards advance on 23.7.2022 to the said O.P no.1.  The balance amount of Rs.60,000/- was also paid on 24.7.2022 to O.P No.1.  There were a total number of 71 items handed over to O.P no.1/Consignor and the insurance policy that which was opted was of Reliance Marine Cargo-Road/Rail policy having No.11032222414110002108 dated 24.7.2022.  On 30.7.2022, one Sisupal Singh had called the complainant and had informed him that his household articles had reached Cuttack and he wanted to be guided to the destination at Cuttack for unloading and delivering those.  The complainant reached Cuttack on 1.8.2022 and since he is alone, he could not be present at Cuttack address on 30.7.2022 in order to receive the household articles from the representative of O.P no.1.  Thus, he had requested the cousin of his wife to receive on his behalf, his household articles at Cuttack address. Accordingly, the household articles were delivered to the cousin of the wife of the complainant by representative of O.P no.1.  The complainant was intimated the said cousin of his wife that few items have been damaged.  After reaching Cuttack on 1.8.2022, the complainant found that most of the wooden furnitures like cots, tables and almirah were broken/damaged and there were scratch mark with dents on the steel almirah.  The Acqua guard water filter tap & stand, water level indicator of the invertor battery, wall clock, fridge stand etc were all broken.  The complainant also noticed that two of the items were missing from the said list of 71 items which are, one red big bucket and one carton with panting colours and costly toys were missing.  The complainant had tried to apprise the O.Ps about the two missing items as well as the broken items but he could not get any positive response from them O.Ps.  The complainant had also issued legal notice to the O.Ps on 10.9.2022 and had informed that the insurance claim period had already elapsed but O.P no.1 had agreed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the repairing charges of the damaged items and accordingly, the bank account details of the complainant was sought for.  The same were provided promptly by the complainant to O.P no.1 on 30.9.22 but thereafter the O.P no.1 had not responded even if reminder was sent to him.  Another legal notice was issued to the O.Ps on 12.11.2022 on behalf of the complainant.  Ultimately, having no other way out, the complainant had approached this Commission seeking a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the O.Ps towards his harassments and sufferings and further with a prayer to pass any other order as deemed fit and proper.

Alongwith his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, both the O.Ps have been set exparte vide order dt.20.3.2023.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and if  the O.P has practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Point No. ii.

Out of the three points, point no. ii being the most pertinent point is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

After perusing the complainant petition, the written notes of submission and copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the O.P no.1 as per Annexure-1, which is copy of the agreement to transport the household articles of the complainant for a consideration of Rs.65,000/- was made and the complainant thereby had paid an advance sum of Rs.5000/- to the O.P no.1.  Ofcourse the complainant has stated to have paid the balance amount of Rs.60,000/- on the next day which is not disputed.  It is the contention of the complainant that he being alone he could not be present at Cuttack in order to receive his household articles from O.P no.1, which were being transported from New Delhi to Cuttack and had reached Cuttack on 30.7.2022.  For the said reason, he had entrusted a cousin of his wife to receive the said articles on his behalf.  It is the plea of the complainant that since there were 71 number of household articles, the cousin of his wife could not count each of those and could not verify them properly in order to find out if any of those were missing.  He could notice the same on his arrival at Cuttack on 1.8.2022.  The transporter/O.P no.1 was under the obligation to transport the household articles/luggages of the complainant on 24.7.2022 and had agreed that those were to be delivered within 7 to 8 days thereafter at Cuttack.  This is to say that, by 30.7.22 the household articles were to reach Cuttack and were to be delivered as per the agreement.  It was the duty of the complainant either to receive those articles at Cuttack personally or entrust someone who could do the same responsibly.  He himself could not be present at Cuttack for which he had entrusted a cousin of his wife for the said purpose.  Now the plea of the complainant is that, the cousin of his wife could not count the 71 number of household items when delivered and also could not locate if any of those were missing or were damaged.  The cousin of wife of the complainant should have acted promptly and should have drawn attention of the agent of O.P no.1 while receiving the household articles of the complainant being entrusted to act as a representative of the complainant thereby ensuring that all the 71 number of household articles those which were transported were all received.  It was also his duty to verify and find out if any of those were damaged or broken and to report the same immediately to the representative of O.P no.1.  To this aspect there is absolutely no evidence from the side of the complainant.  When the goods were once delivered and received, the contention of the complainant that some of those were damaged or broken, two of those were missing without any cogent evidence in support would not suffice.  Accordingly, this Commission cannot barely come to a conclusion that the O.Ps were deficient in their service and that they had practised any unfair trade.  Accordingly, this point goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Points no.i & iii.

             From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                          ORDER

              Case is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

               Order pronounced in the open court on the 30^th day of November,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                                 Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                        President

 

 

 

                                                                                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                 Member