BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 20^th DAY OF MARCH 2017

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OP to pay him a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards damage caused to the goods as well as for missing items together with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-, alleging deficiency of service.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant hired the services of OP for packaging and transportation of his house hold articles to Bangalore from New Delhi.  That the sales team of OP while accepting the order for packing and delivery undertook to pack and deliver all the house hold articles in a good condition without any damages and collected additional cost @ 3% on the value, as insurance.  That despite the said commitment the complainant found on receipt of the goods at Bangalore serious damage was caused to Almirah, another Almirah with mirror, table, center table, sofa cum bed, kitchen boxes, shoe stand and chair, cot, bags and suitcase, steel stand, some plastic container another articles were missing and there was also delay in delivering the goods.  That one supervisor of OP by name Dharamraj, gave in writing confirming the damages and missing of certain items.  That complainant thereafter contacted Delhi office as well as Bangalore office furnishing them list of articles damaged and requested for compensation.  However, both office of OP did not respond at all.  Therefore, the complainant having no other choice has approached the Forum for redressal.

3. In response to the notice issued, OP entered their appearance through their advocate and filed their version contending in brief, as under:

That the complainant had availed their services for reallocating his house hold goods from New Delhi to Bangalore.  That OP with utmost care and in a diligent manner handled the house hold articles which were being in use and were in almost scrapped stage.  That the said house hold articles were reallocated on 31.08.2015 and were also delivered to the complainant.  That the complainant after having received the house hold articles has made part payment on 13.09.2015 on which date he was fully satisfied with the reallocation effected by OP and made payment.  If at all the complainant had any claim of damages he could have withhold the further payments.  Therefore, it is clear that, the complainant has filed this complaint after delay of three months to make wrongful gain for himself and to cause wrongful loss to the OP.  That OP has delivered all the items in good condition and it is not liable for any wear and tear of used materials.  That the complainant has created a list of damaged articles without disclosing the condition of such goods at the time of shifting.  That there is no any deficiency of service on the part of OP. 

For the above amongst other reasons, OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        5. The complainant as well as one Ganesh Kedia, Manager of OP filed their affidavit evidence in support of their respective case.  Complainant has produced certain documents including photographs to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint.

6. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

7. It is not in dispute that, the complainant hired the services of OP for reallocating the house hold articles from New Delhi to Bangalore by paying the requisite amount as charged by OP.  OP also did not deny that they collected additional cost at the rate of 3% on the value towards insurance of the house hold articles towards their safe and timely delivery.  OP has delivered the said house hold articles to complainant at Bangalore.  Complainant alleges that on receipt of the house hold articles from OP, he noticed damage to various house hold articles caused during the course of transportation and certain plastic items were also missing which fact he immediately brought to the notice of OP but OP did not respond to his request.  Therefore, he was compelled to approach the Forum.

8. According to complainant during the course of transportation severe damage has been caused to two Almirah out of which one was with mirror, table, center table, sofa cum bed, kitchen boxes, shoe stand and chair, cot, bags, suitcase, steel stand.  He further claims that, some plastic containers were missing.  To substantiate his allegations regarding damages caused to the house hold articles as stated above, he has produced the photographs of the said articles.  It is pertinent to note that, OP either in their version or in their evidence affidavit did not dispute the genuineness of the photographs produced.  The said photographs supports the allegations of the complainant as to the damages caused to the various steel items as mentioned in his complaint as well as in his evidence affidavit.  In fact one of the Almirah has been seriously damaged and it appears to us that, it cannot be put to use at all.  Another Almirah has also suffered severe dents and some articles have been damaged beyond repair.  The complainant has produced the photograph of the lorry with house hold articles just before unloading to show as to the manner in which the house hold articles have been arranged inside the lorry for transportation.  From the manner in which the articles have been arranged in the Lorry, the house hold articles are bound to get damaged in the transportation.  The sworn testimony of the complainant coupled with undisputed photographs establishes that several house hold articles of the complainant have been damaged during the course of transportation from New Delhi to Bangalore.

9. It is pertinent to note that, OP did not respond to any of the communications made by the complainant regarding damages caused to his house hold articles.  If really the said house hold articles had not been damaged during transportation they ought to have responded to his request denying his allegations.  The conduct of OP in not responding to any of the phone calls as well as letters itself indicates that OP was very well aware of damage caused to the house hold articles.  The complainant by adducing oral as well as documentary evidence has proved the deficiency of service on the part of OP resulting in damage to his house hold articles.

10. The complainant has not specifically mentioned the extent of damage in terms of money to each and every article damaged during the transportation.  However looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and damages to the house hold articles, as could be seen from the photographs, we feel it appropriate to award global compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant to be paid by OP.  The conduct of OP in causing damage to the house hold articles during shipment and their failure to respond to his request and letters must have put him to great hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.  More over the said conduct has forced the complainant to spend his precious time and money in approaching the Forum.  Therefore, we proposed to direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for having caused hardship, inconvenience and mental agony together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.  Accordingly point Nos.1 & 2 have been answered.

11. The order could not be passed within the stipulated time due to heavy pendency.  

12. In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following:  

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the complainant for having caused damages to the house hold articles.  Further they shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) for having caused hardship, inconvenience and mental agony to complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand).

OP shall comply the order within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.

Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 20^th day of March 2017)

MEMBER                            MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 26.02.2016.

           Lohith C.K

Documents produced by the complainants:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 21.03.2016.

1. Sri.Ganesh Kedia.  

Document produced by the Opposite party – Nil

MEMBER                            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

Vln*