Dated: 13.11.2024

O R D E R

BY Mr. K. B. SANGANNANAVAR: Pri. Dist. & Session Judge (R)- JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. This is an appeal filed by OP in CC/120/2019 on the file of I Additional DCDRC, Bengaluru, aggrieved by the order dated 28.09.2020. (The parties to this appeal will be referred as to their rank assigned to them by the District Commission)

2. The Commission examined grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard learned counsels.

3. Now the point that arise for consideration of the Commission would be:

Whether impugned order dated 28.09.2020 passed in CC/1020/2019 by I Additional DCDRC, Bengaluru, does call for an interference of the Commission for the grounds set out in the appeal memo?

4. Complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP in not providing an AC vehicle to carry her pet dogs to CUPA as a result two of other pet dogs died inside the vehicle.  In this regard, she has sought for damages of Rs.8,00,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and negligence and Rs.1,00,000/- towards legal expenses. The CEO of OP Mr.Santhosh Shekar, upon service of notice, appeared before the District Commission, did not choose to submit any version.  In such circumstances, DF held an enquiry and upon  appreciation of the evidence of Ms.Jessica Jerusha, along with Ex.P1 photographs, which are  showing  dogs were living when they were being transported through pet cab and were   living on the floor of the cab and the cab number in which dogs were transported on the date of transport and the  District Commission had also appreciated Ex.P2 Postmortem report of the two bull dogs died during transportation. Ex.P3 is a letter written by CUPA to HOD pathology department of veterinary college. Ex.P4 is Certificate U/s 65B of Evidence Act. Ex.P5. is an affidavit given by Sanjana Madappa, Adoptions and Outreach officer at CUPA. Ex.P6 is copy of screen shot of the message sent by Pet Cab and Ex.P7 is CD to authenticate photographs. It is found from the impugned order,  the District Commission did not find any documents to show that complainant had spent Rs.5,00,000/- over  a period to rear the dogs and   observed – “No doubt she has to pay and paid some amount to buy the dogs and rear the dogs.  Nowadays rearing of dogs is expensive and it requires all kind of precautions and measures.  Quite a lot of amount has to be spent for rearing the said pet dogs.  Shock and grief of physical department of the pet dogs cannot be explained in terms of words and also cannot be adequately compensated.”  In such circumstances, awarded Rs.25,000/- each to the pet dogs that died during the transportation which in our view has to be held most reasonable which cannot be modified, however awarding Rs.50,000/- towards damages for causing bereavement of the dogs needs to be modified.  In other words, awarding such amount has to be held on higher side   has to be reduced to Rs.20,000/- and in such conclusion  we proceed to allow the appeal in part.  Consequently,   modify the impugned order dated 28.09.2020 passed in CC/1020/2019 on the file of I Additional DCDRC, Bengaluru in the following terms:

OP is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- each as compensation for the negligence and as a resultdeath of pet dogs during transportation along with interest at the rate of 6%p.a. from the date of complaint till realization and dopay a sum of Rs.15,000/- for the mental agony,physical inconveniencesand bereavement expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses within 60 days failing which the amount so awarded shall carry interest @ 06% p.a. from the date of default till realization.

5. The Amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to District Commission for needful.

6. Send a copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties to the appeal for information.

        Lady Member                                         Judicial Member              

*GGH*