Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/655/2012

DRS LOGISTICS PVT. LTD., MANAGING DIRECTOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

SYED KAJA MOIDDIN - Opp.Party(s)

V. BALAJI

17 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present:   HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI,     PRESIDENT.

                                                                THIRU.J.JAYARAM,                                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER.

                                                                                                F.A.No.655/2012

 (Against the order in C.C.No.147/2010, dated 17.09.2012 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (North).

 DATED THIS THE 17^th DAY OF APRIL 2015.

                                                                                           

1.  M/s. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,

     Represented by its Managing Director,

     No.221, Kabra Complex,

     No.61 – M.G. Road,

     Secunderabad – 500 003.                            1^st Appellant/1^st Opposite Party

2.  M/s. DRS LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,

     Represented by its Director,

     No.6, PillayarKoil Street,

     PadiKuppam Main Road,

     Near Rail Nagar, Koyembedu,

     Chennai – 600 107.                                     2^ndAppellant/2^ndOpposite Party

                                Vs

Syed KajaMoiddin,

Flat No.5-B,

10^th Cross, A.G.S. Colony,

Velacherry,

Chennai – 600 042.                                               Respondent/Complainant

 

Counsel for Appellants 1&2/Opposite Parties1&2 :  M/s. V. Balaji, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent/Complainant                 :  Mr.K.P. KiranRao, Advocate.

                   This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 10.03.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material recordsthis Commission made the following: 

ORDER

Thiru.J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.                This appeal is filed by the opposite parties 1 and 2 against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in C.C.No.147/2010 dated 17.09.2012,allowing the complaint. 

2.                The case of the complainant is that on 16.10.2009 he booked his car with the opposite party for transporting the same from Hyderabad to Chennai and the Complainant paid freight charges of Rs.9,000/- and on 30.10.2009 he receivede-mail from the 1^st opposite party informing him that his car met with an accident while loading into the truck and the car was damaged. The 1^st opposite party advised to the complainant to contact his insurance company and the insurance company informed him that he was not entitled to claim under the insurance policy, since he was not driving the car at the time of accident and the accident happened in transit. The opposite parties estimated the damage of the car at Rs.90,000/- as estimated by ABT Maruthi and the complainant requested the opposite parties to repair the car or in the alternative reimburse the amount to be incurred towards repairs. The complainant has incurred expenses of Rs.81,719/- for repairing the car. The accident occurred only because of the negligence on the part of the opposite parties and so the opposite parties are liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant. The opposite parties delivered the damaged car without the music system and one of the speakers worth about Rs.15,000/-. The opposite parties received the legal notice issued by the complainant but no reply was forthcoming from the opposite parties. Hence the complainant against the opposite parties claiming compensation for the damages to the vehicle and the accessories and for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

2.                According to the opposite parties the vehicle was having comprehensive insurance including cover for transit risk, and the vehicle was transported at owner’s risk and they were willing to pay the difference amount exceeding the policy limit. But the complainant did not claim compensation from the insurance company. Further the complainant failed to issue the mandatory notice under section 10 of the Carriers Act and there is no deficiency in service on their part.        

3.                The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Aggrieved by the impugned order the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.    

4.                Admittedly the car was damaged in transit and on taking delivery of the damaged car as advised by the opposite parties, the car was taken to ABT Maruthi, Chennai who had given the estimate for the work at Rs.1,06,000/-. The insurance company refused to entertain his claim on the ground that the vehicle was not driven by him and the damage was caused during the transit. Therefore the opposite parties are bound to make the entire payment as per the job card invoice under Ex.A5 to the ABT Maruthi, Chennai. The complainant issued legal notice under Ex.A6 to the opposite parties calling upon the opposite parties to pay Rs.81,719/-, the expenses incurred by him and to pay Rs.29,000/- towards the transportation charges, and Rs.15,000/- for loss of the music system totaling Rs.1,25,719/-.

5.                It is seen from Ex.A5 job card and invoice of ABT Maruthi dated 19.12.2009 and Ex.A8 statement that the complainant has paid only a sum of Rs.56,719/- and other than Ex.A5 no other record or bills are produced to substantiate that he paid Rs.81,719/- as repair charges. 

6.                The contention of the opposite parties would be that the complaint is not maintainable in the absence of the statutory notice under section 10 Carriers Act.  Based on the decisions cited by the complainant to establish that the legal notice sent to the opposite parties would be construed as notice under section 10 at the Carriers Act the District Forum rightly held that the legal notice issued by the complainant is sufficient notice under section 10 of Carriers Act and we hold that the contention of the opposite parties in this regard is untenable.

7.                As contended by the complainant the car which was entrusted to the opposite parties for safe delivery was delivered in damaged condition which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

8.                The opposite parties cannot compel the complainant to claim damages from the insurance company especially when the insurance company has already declined to entertain the complainant’s claim. There is no force in the contention of the opposite parties that they are not liable under section 9 of the Carriers Act. The further submission of the opposite parties is that the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary party/viz., insurance company and this contention is untenable.

9.               Therefore we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in delivering the consignment/car to the complainant in damaged condition and refusing to pay damages to the complainant.

10.               The District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.56,719/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 19.12.2009 which is the date of payment of Rs.56719/- by the complainant, till payment and to pay further amount of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs of Rs.5000/-.

11.               There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum. There is no merit in the appeal.

12.              In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

       J.JAYARAM,                                                                    R.REGUPATHI,

JUDICIAL MEMBER                                                                 PRESIDENT