Complaint filed on: 03-01-2012
Disposed on: 22-08-2012
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.11/2012
DATED THIS THE 22nd AUGUST 2012
PRESENT
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT.ANITA SHIVAKUMAR.K., MEMBER
Complainant: -
Sri.Maharudrayya Nandimath,
Son of Sri.Shivarudraiah,
Aged about 32 years,
Residing at No.369,
4th Avenue, Teachers colony,
Koramangala, Bangalore-34
V/s
Opposite parties: -
1. Sai Cargo Packers and Movers,
Head office: Old Delhi – Gurgaon Road, Near Mother Dairy, Smalka, New-Delhi-37
Represented by its Managing Director Sri.Sikhandar Singh
2. Mr.Vikas Kumar,
Manager, Allied Movers and Packers Pvt. Ltd,
Opp. to Salarpuria Serenity apartment, Mangammanapalya, Bangalore
ORDER
SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops No.1 and 2, under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying to pass an order, awarding an amount of Rs.3,75,000=00 and other relief in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.
The Complainant was working in HCL Info Systems Pvt. Ltd, Noida and residing in No.A-39, Vasundara Enclave, New Delhi along with his family members. The complainant left the job at HCL Info Systems Pvt. Ltd, Noida and got the employment in WIPRO limited, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore. After securing the job at WIPRO, the complainant shifted his residence from Noida to Bangalore, while shifting his family, the complainant has booked the services for transferring his household articles and belongings on 7-5-2011 and on the same day the complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,150=00 by way of cash being the part payment of the transportation charges. The OP delivered the household articles and belongings of the complainant on 1-6-2011, at the time of delivering the articles, the complainant found that there was heavy damage as well as some materials were misplaced and at that juncture, the complainant then and there itself approached the representative of the OP by name Vikas Kumar, and the said Vikas Kumar took the list of loss and broken articles as mentioned below.
1. TV Stand Rs.02,100.00
2. Toys Box Rs.01,000.00
3. Fridge Rs.08,000.00
4. Mattress (Bed big) Rs.09,000.00
5. Toys Rs.00,500.00
6. Carpet Rs.01,000.00
7. Chair – S Mark Rs.00,800.00
8. Heater Bos Rs.00,500.00
9. Television set body damage Rs.07,500.00
10. Wall Clock Rs.00,200.00
11. Kitchen Stand Steel Rs.01,600.00
12. Bath Room Plastic Items Rs.00,300.00
13. Glass items Rs.00,300.00
Total Rs.44,800.00
3. Thus, the complainant incurred a loss of Rs.44,800=00 both towards broken as well as misplaced articles. Evenafter the above said fact, the complainant has paid the balance amount of Rs.4,310=00 towards transportation charges and he has also paid a sum of Rs.3,150=00 being the warehouse charges for keeping the articles in the warehouse for a period of 9 days, in all Rs.17,610=00 has been paid and the complainant has incurred a loss of Rs.62,410=00. At the time of taking delivery of the above said broken household articles and other belongings, one Vikas Kumar has taken an undertaking that, he will look after the things and he will send the same to the head office and the matter will be settled within 7 days from the date of taking delivery of the household articles and belongings. But till date, there is no response from the said representative of the OP. In this regard, the complainant approached the said representative, but he is giving evasive answer, then he wrote a letter dated 7-6-2011 to the Manager, Sai Cargo Packers and Movers requested to settle the matter, but the OP failed and neglected to settle or reply to the letter of the complainant. At the time of booking the articles, the OP has collected the insurance premium and the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000=00, but the OP insured amount of Rs.50,000=00 and paid the same to the United Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai. Till date, the complainant has not purchased the household articles and belongings. Every day, there is a friction in the house and quarrel between the complainant and his wife for the above said reasons and the complainant is not in a position to concentrate on his work. The complainant has approached International Consumer Rights Protection Council, Thane west, India. As per the request of the complainant, the said International Consumer Rights Protection Council has issued a notice dated 21-9-2011 to the OP, evenafter receipt of the notice, the OP failed and neglected to comply or reply to the same. So, the OP is liable to compensate the complainant in a sum of Rs.3,75,000=00 towards transportation chargers, loss and damages of the household articles, interest amount, mental agony, Telephone and miscellaneous charges. Hence, the present complaint is filed.
4. After service of notice, the Ops no.1 and 2 did not appear before the forum, and they have been placed exparte, and posted the case for filing the affidavit of the complainant.
5. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence, and produced five documents with list dated 3-1-2012 and six more documents with a memo dated 23-7-2012. We have heard the arguments of the complainant and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant meticulously.
6. One Maharudrayya Nandimath, who being the complainant has filed his affidavit stating that, he was working in HCL Info Systems Pvt. Ltd, Noida and residing in No.A-39, Vasundara Enclave, New Delhi along with his family members, and he left the job at HCL Info Systems Pvt. Ltd, Noida and got employment in WIPRO limited, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore. After securing the job at WIPRO, he shifted his residence from New Delhi to Bangalore, while shifting his family, he booked the services of the OP-1 for transferring his household articles and belongings on 7-5-2011 by paying cash of Rs.10,150=00 being the part payment of the transportation charges. The OP-1 delivered the household articles and belongings of the complainant on 1-6-2011, and at the time of delivering the articles, he found that there was heavy damage as well as some materials has been misplaced and at that juncture, he approached the representative of the OP-2 i.e. Vikas Kumar, and that man took the list of loss and broken articles and signed the items list and incurred a loss of Rs.44,800=00 both towards broken as well as misplaced articles. Evenafter the above said fact, he has paid the balance amount of Rs.4,310=00 towards transportation charges and Rs.3,150=00 being the warehouse charges for keeping the articles in the warehouse for a period of 9 days, in all he has paid Rs.17,610=00. Thus he incurred a loss of Rs.62,410=00, at the time of taking delivery of the articles. One Vikas Kumar has undertaken that he will look after the things and he will send the same to the head office i.e. New Delhi office and the matter will be settled within 7 days from the date of taking delivery of the household articles and belongings. But till date there is no response from the said representative Vikas Kumar and he approached the said representative of the OP-2, but he is giving evasive answer, then he wrote a letter to the manager, Sai Cargo Packers and Movers, Old New Delhi, but the OP failed and neglected to settle or reply to the letter of the complainant. At the time of booking the articles, the OP has collected the insurance premium and the insured the articles for Rs.1,00,000=00, but the OP insured amount of Rs.50,000=00 and paid the same to the United Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai. Till date, he has not purchased the household articles, the OP is liable to compensate him in a sum of Rs.3,75,000=00, therefore he filed the present complaint. So order be passed as prayed in the complaint.
7. The above said assertions of the complainant have remained unchallenged. The Ops have neither filed their version nor denied the sworn testimony of the complainant. So under the circumstance, we have no reasons to disbelieve the sworn testimony of the complainant. Let us have a look at the documents of the complainant to know whether the oral evidence of the complainant is supported by documentary evidence or not. The document no.1 is the copy of receipt issued by the OP-1 in the name of the complainant dated 5-7-2011 for having undertaken in respect of transportation of household articles of the complainant from New Delhi to Bangalore and the said receipt is for Rs.4,350=00. The document no.2 is the copy cash memo issued by the OP in the name of the complainant dated 6-5-2011 for having received Rs.14,500=00 for transportation of the articles from New Delhi to Bangalore and that cash memo was accompanied by packing list and as per list, it is made clear that, in total 37 articles were to be transported from New Delhi to Bangalore and before 37 articles mentioned value of the articles was also mentioned and on the back page of packing list one Vikas Kumar who being the employee of the OP-1 has signed and mentioned his mobile no.9019040573 and by seeing the back page of the said list, it is noticed that, out of 37 articles transported, 19 articles were safe and 5 articles were broken and 10 articles have been missed and total value of 10 missed articles will be Rs.30,400=00 and total value of broken articles is Rs.14,400=00. The document no.3 is the copy of insurance dated 10-5-2011 issued by the United Insurance Company Ltd in the name of the complainant for Rs.50,000=00. The document no.4 is the copy of email letter sent by the complainant to the OP dated 7-6-2011 calling upon the OP to pay compensation, as some of the articles are damaged and some of the articles are missing and alongwith the said list, the list of 37 articles is found and in that list, it is stated that, 10 articles were missed and 5 articles were broken. Next document is the copy of notice sent by the International Consumer Rights Protection Council dated 22-9-2011 to the OP calling upon the OP to pay Rs.1,50,000=00 as compensation for causing losses, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant. The last document is the copy of the photographs taken by the complainant during the packing.
8. The evidence of the complainant that, after booking the transportation service, the OP did not transport the household articles properly to him, as 10 articles were missed and 5 articles have been damaged and no efforts were made to compensate to him, after sending the notice is corroborated by documentary evidence i.e. cash memo issued by the OP, copy of notice sent to the OP by International Consumer Rights Protection Council and the complainant, The complainant has produced two positive photos to show that, the TV was damaged during the transportation and five copies of receipts are produced by the complainant for having purchased wooden wrack, TV and Refrigerator.
9. By making careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant, it is vivid and clear that, the articles given to the OP for transportation from New Delhi to Bangalore by the complainant are not new branded purchased articles, but they are used articles by the complainant and his family members. It is no doubt true that, the complainant has proved with believable material evidence that, the Ops are negligent at the time of transportation of his household articles from New Delhi to Bangalore and there is deficiency of service on the part of the Ops and out of 37 articles booked for availing transportation service of the OP 10 articles have been missed and 5 articles were broken and total value of missed and broken articles will be Rs.44,880=00 out of the value of missed and broken articles, we will deduct the depreciation of 10% for calculating the value and after deducting 10%, the remaining amount will be paid Rs.40,320=00. The complainant is entitled to Rs.40,320=00 towards damage caused to his articles, as 10 articles were missing and 5 articles have been damaged due to negligence of the OP and the complainant is awarded Rs.5,000=00 towards mental agony, harassment and inconveniences, and in all the complainant is entitled to Rs.45,320=00 from the OPs and not as claimed in the complaint. The Ops are directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,320=00 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, the Ops shall pay the said amount to the complainant with 10% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of the order to till the date of realization. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.1,000=00 to the complainant towards cost of litigation, and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly maintainable. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed. The Ops are directed to pay Rs.40,320=00 (Rs.Forty thousand three hundred twenty only) to the complainant towards damages.
The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000=00 (Rs.Five thousand only) to the complainant towards mental agony, harassment and inconvenience.
The Ops are directed to pay the said amount to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which, the Ops shall pay the said amount to the complainant with 10% interest per annum on the said amount from the date of the order to till the date of realization.
The Ops are directed to pay Rs.1,000=00 (Rs.One thousand only) to the complainant towards cost of litigation.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 22nd August 2012.
Member Member President
