Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

cc/3303/2017

Preeti, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Raman Cargo Packers and Movers, - Opp.Party(s)

15 Oct 2019

ORDER

Complaint Filed on:29.12.2017

Disposed On:15.10.2019

                                                                              

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

 

 

    DATED THIS THE 15^th OCTOBER OF 2019

 

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., BAL, LLM - PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, B.A., LLB, MEMBER

                          

                      

Complaint No.3303/2017

 

 

 

COMPLAINANT	Smt.Preeti, W/o Arjun Mann, Age 29 years, H.No.10/4, 2nd Floor, Queens Road, Bengaluru – 560 052.       V/s
OPPOSITE PARTies	1) Raman Cargo Packers & Movers, Pardeep Sharma (Contact Person), Khalsa No.236/1 (F.F), Bijwasan Main Najafgarh Road, New Delhi – 110 061.   Advocate – Sri.Kumar   2) Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company, Front Branch Office: Dastor House 2nd Floor (Above Union Bank of India) Piren Nariman Street, P.M Road Front, Mumbai – 400001.   Advocate - Sri.S.Krishna Kishore.

                                       

 

O R D E R

 

 

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K., PRESIDENT

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite parties (herein after called as OPs), under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Complainant prays to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2,01,000/- being the full cost for repair items as compensation in lieu of both property damage and additional costs faced by the complainant, to pay cost of repair renewals Rs.1,10,000/- and to pay additional sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages.

 

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under:

 

The Complainant had booked for transporting house hold articles of the complainant with the OP-1 on 01.12.2017.  The said items to be transferred from Alipur Delhi to Bengaluru.  The OP-1 had picked the said items on 06.12.2017 and delivered the same to Bangalore on 14.12.2017.  The complainant submitted that after opening the pack the complainant came to know that, article was damaged especially LG LED TV.  The said fact was informed to the OP-1.  OP-1 misguided the complainant that all items specially LG LED TV would cover accident insurance upto Rs.1,00,000/-.  Hence complainant approached OP-2 insurance company for recover the amounts for her items which are broken.  OP-2 informed that nothing will be recovered only accidental insurance of the vehicle.

 

Complainant further submitted that complainant several times to OP-1 and also mailed thrice.  Complainant did her insurance from packers and movers with same party but right now they are not giving any amount to complainant for her costly items (L.G LED TV) which are broken due to mistake of packers and movers transport.  But OP-1 has not responded.  Complainant left with no other option but to file a case against them and sought the following directions.   

 

1) Pay a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- which will cover for the cost of television (LED:3D 55 inches model No.55LM7600) which was mishandled and got broken while enroute from Delhi to Bengaluru due to blatant negligence on the part of the logistics company mentioned above.

 

2) In additional, pay a sum of Rs.19,000/- which is the cost of table also broken during transportation by logistics company.

 

3) In addition, a television stand costing 24,000/- was also damaged.

 

4) A statute of religious and sentimental value costing Rs.4,000/- is also damaged condition.

 

5) The cabinet and frame of my dresser and the legs of the sofa cum bed also damaged and will need repair cost of around Rs.14,000/-.

 

Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

 

3.      After service of the notice from the office, the OPs appeared before this Forum and filed objections.  OP-1 filed version as under:

OP-1 submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable as the same has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to make wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the OP.  The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts which a view to take wrongful benefit under the guise of the consumer protection.  The present complaint is frivolous, vague, vexatious, incorrect and baseless as the complainant has failed to disclose any tenable cause of action for indulgence of the Forum, hence the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 

 

OP-1 is a reputed Company involved in the business of packing and moving cargos from one place to another.  OP-1 has gained goodwill in the market because of its profound services to ensure delivery of cargos safely to the destined place.  OP-1 has wide range of clients who trust them for the services provided by them.  OP-1 further submitted that the complainant approached the OP-1 and on 01.12.2017 booked for moving his items from H.No.2010, Alipur, Delhi to Bangalore.  OP-1 started picking up all the articles on 06.11.2017 and the same were delivered on 15.12.2017.  OP-1 insured that the cargo of the complainant was delivered safely in their original condition and on 15.12.2017 the complainant signed & received the cargo in the original condition.  That the complainant did not complained anything of breakage.  That even if any breakage or damage was done to the cargo of the complainant, the insurance company of the complainant is to be held liable for any damage or losses incurred by the complainant.  That the complainant is not entitled to any relief much less as prayed in the complaint.  The entire complaint is false, fabricated, motivated and mischievous and has been preferred solely to blackmail and harass the OP.  Hence OP-1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 

OP-2 filed version contending that the present complaint filed by the complainant with an allegation that, the articles got damaged during the transit and all the allegations made in the complaint by the complainant are against the OP-1 i.e., Cargo Service only.  OP-2 is not aware of the averments mentioned in the complaint.  Even the prayer made by the complainant seeking Rs.2,01,000/- being the full cost of repair of the damaged items as compensation along with cost of repair bill and compensation for hardship caused by them.  Hence, in the absence of allegations against OP-2, the complaint against OP-2 may kindly be dismissed.

 

4. OP-2 further submitted that, complainant has booked Cargo Packers & Movers for transportation of items from Delhi to Bengaluru on 01.12.2017.  On 06.12.2017 the OP-1 collected the articles and sent to Bengaluru and complainant received the said articles on 14.12.2017.  OP-1 obtained signature for having received the packed items and complainant was misguided that, all items, specially LG LED could cover in accidental insurance upto Rs.1,00,000/- and Transporter assured that they would cover all the items that were transported and they are not giving any amount for the items that were broken and when she contacted the OP-2 for claiming the amount for damages they replied that, nothing was covered towards the items that were transported and the Insurance coverage is only for vehicle and the OP-1 is not responding for complainant demand and therefore she filed the present complaint.

 

OP-2 further submitted that the grievance of the complainant is against the OP-1 for delivering the damaged articles which got damaged during transit from Delhi to Bengaluru.  However, the said items are not covered under insurance and therefore OP-2 is not required to indemnify either the complainant or the OP-1.  The complainant has to claim and recover the compensation from the OP-1 alone who is a Transporter and not against the OP-2.  No where in the complaint the complainant mentioned about the policy particulars that was obtained any of the party covering the risk of the items relating to the complainant that were transported by OP-1 from Delhi to Bengaluru.  Even the OP-2 is not aware of the alleged damages caused to LG TV, Television Stand, Cabinet Frame and Dresser and legs of Sofa along with statue during transit of the said items from Delhi to Bengaluru by OP-1.  In the absence of contract of insurance entered into by the complainant with OP-2, the complainant cannot claim any amount from them.

 

OP-2 further submitted that, the OP-1 has not obtained any policy from OP-2 covering the risk of the items relating to the complainant that were being transported from Delhi to Bengaluru.  Complaint filed by the complainant against OP-1 is not having any cause of action and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP-2 dealing with the claim of the complainant.  Hence the complaint against OP-2 may kindly be dismissed in limine.  The present complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits.  Complainant came up with false allegations and has not approached the Forum with clean hands.  The averments mentioned in the complaint are contrary to her/his statement before the police and he/she has not acted immediately upon happening of the event.  Since the claim was not intimated by complainant to this OP, they are deprived of assess the actual damages.  Hence it is a pre-mature claim.  Since no intimation is delivered to OP-2.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP-2.  Therefore, the present complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and liable to the dismissed as the complainant is not entitled to claim any amount against the OP-2.  Hence OP-2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

5. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the OP-2 have filed their affidavit reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and objection.  Complainant and OP-2 have submitted their written arguments.  Complainant and OP-2 have produced documents which were marked.  We have heard the arguments of both sides and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both parties scrupulously and posted the case for order.

 

6. Based on the above materials, the following points arise for our consideration;  

1. Whether the Complainant has proved that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP, if so, whether she is entitled for the relief sought for?

 

2.  What order?

 

7. Our findings on the above points are as under:

 

Point No.1:  In the negative

Point No.2:  As per the order below

 

 

REASONS

 

8. Point No:1:- Admittedly the complainant had booked for transporting the house hold articles from Alipur Delhi to Bengaluru with OP-1 on 01.12.2017.  The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.14,300/- on 05.12.2017 to the OP-1 to transport the above said articles from Alipur Delhi to Bangalore as per Ex-A1.  The contention of the complainant is that, the OP-1 has delivered the said items on 14.12.2017.  After opening the pack the complainant came to know that, the articles were damaged.  To substantiate this contention the complainant has produced photo’s of the damaged items as per Ex-A6.  On the other hand OP-1 submitted that the OP-1 delivered the said items safely in their original condition on 15.12.2017.  The complainant signed and received the cargo in original condition.  At the time of receiving the said articles the complainant has not complained about damage of the said items.

 

9. On perusal of the entire documents the complainant has produced only photo’s to prove that the said items were damaged.  The complainant has not produced any repair bill or estimation for the damaged articles to prove that the said items were damaged.  Except the self-serving statement of the complainant there is no material on record to prove that the articles were damaged during the transit.  Without any credible evidence only based on the photos we cannot come to the conclusion that the said disputed articles were damaged during transit.  In our considered opinion the complainant has failed to establish deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly we answered point No.1.

 

10. Point no.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  Parties to bear their own costs.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this, the 15^th day of October 2019)

 

 

 

   

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Smt.Preeti. 

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Copy of consignment note dated 06.12.2017 bearing No.0009.
Ex-A2	Copy of packing list.
Ex-A3	Copy of quotation No.2014 dated 05.12.2017.
Ex-A4	Copy of Certificate  of Marine Insurance dated 07.12.2017 (Chola Ms General Insurance)
Ex-A5	Copies of email correspondence dated 18.12.2017, 21.12.2017 & 22.12.2017.
Ex-A6	Photocopies of (1) LG LED 3D. (2) LG LED Corner broken (3) TV wrapped by this Razai. (4) Table corner damage. (5) Table Corner. (6) TV stand (7) TV stand (8) Buddha statue
Ex-A7	Copy of phone details

 

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of Opposite Party-2 by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Ananda M, who being the Assistant Manager of OP-2.   

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of OP-2:

 

Ex-B1

Copy of Marine Cargo Open Policy No.2455/00009545/000/00 for the period between 28.08.2017 to 27.08.2018 issued by OP-2 in favour of MS Gee R Logistics and Packers and or in the interest of their customer along with wordings. ( 5 pages)

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(PRATHIBHA.R.K)  PRESIDENT