Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/652

S.R. Veenesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

South City Packers & Movers - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST).

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

 

CASE NO. 652/2014

 

S.R. Veenesh

H.No. 355, 6^th  Main HBCS Layout

Chikkalsandra, Uttarahalli,

Main Road,

Banglore-560061                                              ..…. Complainant

 

 

VERSUS

 

South  City  Packers &  Movers

F-3,RG House, Commercial Complex

Karampura, Near Milan Cinema

New Delhi-110015                                             …..Opposite Party   

 

 

O R D E R

 

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant  hired  services of the OP  and booked his household articles  for delivery from  Gaziabad to  Banglore  and paid a sum of Rs. 27,188/-   on 21.05.2014  vide consignment No. 122. The complainant received his house hold articles on 04.06.2014 and further paid Rs. 3,000/-.  However following articles were not received:-

Sl. No.	NAME OF ARTICLE	APPROX. VALUE.
1.	Aqua Guard:(Kentt RO  systems)	Rs. 14,000.00
2.	Cycle	Rs.   7,000.00
3.	Inverter Trolley	Rs.   5,000.00
4.	Plastic Chairs(4 Nos. )	Rs.   4,400.00
5.	Computer Chair (Revolving)	Rs.    4,000.00
6.	Carom Board	Rs.    3,000.00
	Total Value	Rs. 37,400.00

 

The complainant followed up the matter with OP regarding missing items after two months upon which OP sent mail dated 21.08.2014 stating that  goods of the complainant were safe , sound and  in the same condition in which they were received by OP.  OP committed to deliver the goods to complainant in safe condition and that OP would get aforesaid items on 30.08.2014.  Thereafter the complainant made many requests and sent reminders concerning the aforesaid items but all in vain. Hence the present complaint for refund of sum of Rs. 37,400/- being the price of missing articles and compensation. 

2. OP filed written statement admitting the case of complainant OP has also  admitted partly the contents of para 3 of the complaint  where in   complainant has mentioned the nature and price  of missing goods.  It is further stated in written statement that complainant has not paid the balance amount of Rs. 3,000/- to OP.
3. Complainant has filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. He has filed copy of bill, payment receipt and details  of packing list Annexure –A,B & C, copy of notice and receipt of  register post Annexure –D & E,  Copy of reply from OP  dated 21.08.2014 Annexure –F, Copy of e-mails Annexure –G, Copy of follow-ups Annexure –G-1. Copy of e-mails Annexure –H-1.   On the other hand Sh. Rakesh Kumar Singh Authorized Representative has filed affidavit in evidence on behalf of O.P testifying all the facts as alleged in the written statement.  Parties have filed their written submissions also.
4. We have heard the counsel for Complainant and AR of OP and perused the record. 
5. The controversy involved in the present complaint lies in a narrow campus. The factual position is not in dispute. The OP has categorically admitted in written statement that the house hold -goods were booked by the complainant  for transportation from Gaziabad to Banglore.  The e-mails exchanged  between the parties would clearly  show that OP had admitted the factum of missing goods and assured the complainant to restore the missing goods however till filing of the case and even during the proceedings before  this  Forum, OP did not make any offer  effort to  handover the missing goods to the complainant.  Further we conclude that OP has committed deficiency in service.  Now the question arises as to what amount should be award to the complainant for the missing house hold goods.
6.  We gone through the consignment list by which house hold goods were submitted to OP for transportation.  It is clear from the consignment  list that complainant has not mentioned the actual  value of the missing  goods nor did he file the  invoice /receipt regarding purchase of aforesaid goods . It is also not clear as to how complainant reached the approximate value of missing goods.  Complainant has also not placed on record report of any valuer.  Complainant has also not placed on record.  Nevertheless the non supply of the goods is clearly admitted by OP.   Therefore, the complainant   needs to be reasonably compensated for the loss of goods.  In the absence of price list / invoice of the goods we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if we award a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for loss of goods.  Further we award a sum of Rs. 10,000/-toward compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

        Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to the record room. 

  Announced this_____28TH_ day of __August_____ 2019.

 

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                                     (PUNEET LAMBA)                     

PRESIDENT                                                              MEMBER