PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Complaint No- 25/2023

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sushanta Kumar Panda, Aged about 55 years,

S/O-Late Hrusikesh Panda,

Principal, Gangadhar Meher Higher Secondary School, Sambalpur

PS/Dist-Sambalpur-768001.

Vrs.

Proprietor M/S Samaleswari Packers and Movers,

Shop No.3 Plot No. 3291, Hukum Singh Complex, N.H.6,

Opposite Reliance Petrol Pump,

JMJ Road, Bareipali, Sambalpur-768006.

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :- Self
2. For the O.P.                      :- Sri. B.Singh & associates

Date Of Filing :28.02.2023,Date Of Hearing :30.05.2023, Date Of Judgement : 03.07.2023

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the Complainant is the Principal of G.M Higher Secondary School, Sambalpur and intended to stay at Sambalpur Head Quarter, shifted the family from Bargarh Town to Sambalpur Town. For shifting of establishment the OP packers and movers was contacted, who agreed to shift the household on 28.11.2022. The OP agreed and prepared the item list. Total 131 numbers of products were packed and the OP was paid an amount of Rs. 16,800/- on the same day. In token of acceptance the OP issued money receipt No. 2213, dt. 28.11.2022. The OP packed materials and delivered in the new place at Jagannath Mandir Colony, Sambalpur. On 29.11.2022, after installation of the LED TV, it was found that during movement a crack was noticed and the picture was blurred and after 2 days it was completely black out. On different dates the OP was contacted, who assured to rectify the damage/replace the defective parts. After assurance also the OP failed to perform his part of contact. As a packer and mover it was the duty of OP to ensure the material reach to the destination in safe condition but in the present case the OP failed to provide satisfactory service. Hence this case.
2. The Written Version of the OP is that on 28.11.2022, the Complainant contacted the OP for shifting of establishment of items from Bargarh to Sambalpur and the items as per list were properly packed by the OP. Subsequently a service agreement and invoice was made on the same day vide consignment MSPM No. 2212 of two pages and Invoice bearing MSPM No. 2213 of one page. In Service Agreement, it is clearly mentioned that there is no any insurance was made and there is no responsibility on the part of OP for any damage, breakage and leakage over the item.  As per service agreement and invoice the items was sent on dt. 28.11.2022 and on the same day, the items were delivered to its destination properly duly unloaded and opened the consignment before the Complainant. While opening of consignments, the Complainant was present and at that time package of LED TV was also opened and no any crack was noticed by the Complainant. As per version of the Complainant , after installation of TV set on 29.11.202, the crack was found by him which is not known to the OP  and hence the O.P. is not responsible or any deficiency of services on his part.
3. After perusal of the documents filed by both the parties it reveals that the O.P. has not charged the insurance amount nor insisted for it and taken a declaration of own risk of the Complainant. From the mail dated 26.12.2022 and 08.01.2023 it reveals that the O.P. has assured to repair the television as it was damaged during transit from Bargarh to Sambalpur. No any reply has been given by the O.P. to the mails.

                  In the other hand mere taking a declaration no need to insure the article and no claim for any damage during transit can not                save the O.P. The O.P. has assured to reach the destination in safe condition, this part is violated. No doubt the Complainant paid              Rs. 1800/- on 13.12.2022 but in pleading specifically mentioned that on 29.11.2022 after installation of LED TV, it was found a                crack in noticed and pictures were blurred and after 2 days it was completely black out. The O.P. not given any answer why no reply          was made to the mails.

             From supra discussion it is clear that the LED TV alleged not reached the destination safety and it amounts to deficiency in                   service on the part of the O.P. Accordingly, it is ordered:

ORDER

             The complaint is allowed on contest against the O.P. The O.P is directed to rectify the defects/ damage in LED TV within one              month of this order. In case of non-compliance the O.P. shall be liable to pay cost of product Rs. 53,000/- and compensation                      amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 10,000/-.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 3^rd day of July, 2023.

             Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.