CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM Present Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member CC No. 284/2009 Thursday, the 11th day of November, 2010 Petitioner : N.V Jose, Nammakuzhiyil House, Kothanalloor P.O Kottayam. Opposite parties : 1) The Branch Manager, VRL Logistics Ltd., 904/XIII Vattakunnel Bldg. M.L Road, Chanthakadavu, Kottayam. 2) The Senior Manager,- Claims, VRL Logistics Ltd., Giriraj Annex, Circuit House Road, Hubli, Karnataka State. (By Adv. P.C Chacko) O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanth P., President Case of the petitioner filed on 27..10..2009 is as follows: Petitioner on 2..6..2009 transported an air cooler, washing machine and fridge, metal almirah books, utensils and dresses from Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh to Kottayam. Petitioner sent this articles through the opposite party from the first opposite party’s office. Petitioner given an amount of Rs. 3959/- as transporting charges and received consignment on 13..6..2009 from the Kottayam branch of the opposite party after paying Rs. 125/- as additional charge. When the petitioner received the consignment, petitioner noticed that washing machine and metal almirah were damaged and brockened beyond repair. According to the petitioner at the time of receipt of the consignment petitioner demanded the first opposite party about the compensation for the damage. First opposite party advised petitioner to contact the branch manager for getting compensation. Petitioner phoned the branch manager of the first opposite party, he advised the petitioner to sent letter to the senior manager, claim, VRL logistics, Hubli for compensation. Petitioner on 19..6..2009 sent a letter to the second opposite party. Since the second opposite party had not respond to the -2- letter then on 29..6..2009 petitioner sent a letter to first opposite party. On 9..7..2009 petitioner received a letter from second opposite party, expressing their inability to pay compensation, stating that goods has been booked at owner’s risk, the goods are old and temporarily packed and consignment has no commercial value. According to the petitioner due to the act of deficiency in service committed by the opposite party petitioner sustained a loss of Rs. 13,900/- and a litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-. So, he prays for compensation and cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Opposite party admitted the transportation of seven used house hold goods belongs to the petitioner from Bheemavaram to Kottayam. Articles were delivered to the complainant at their Kottayam office on 13..6..2009. Consignment were booked by petitioner at owner’s risk and the same was noted in the way bill. Knowing and agreeing to the terms and conditions printed in the way bill house hold items were booked by the petitioner. Petitioner also submitted a declaration stating that goods are used, old one and will not have any commercial value. Value of the goods were also not declare at the time of booking. Goods were entrusted for transportation in a packed and sealed condition. The exact condition of the goods were also not ascertain at the time of delivery. Opposite party further contented that damage, if at all any caused may be due to the careless handling of goods in its further transportation from the delivery point at Kottayam to his house at Kothanalloor. According to the opposite party once goods are entrusted for transportation opposite parties taking at most care and caution in dealing with goods. So, according to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. They pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A5 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B3 documents on the side of the opposite parties. Point No. 1 It is an admitted fact by the opposite party, that goods are damaged during the transit conducted by the opposite party. Only question to be decided is whether -3- opposite party is liable for compensation and about the quantum of compensation. In order to deny the liability opposite party taken a contention that goods are booked at owner’s risk and the complainant signed on the bill. So, opposite party cannot be blaimed for the damages caused. Petitioner produced a copy of receipt issued by the opposite party said document is marked as Ext. A1. From Ext. A1 it can be seen that seven items were received by the opposite party from the petitioner and the name of the items were mentioned in the bill. Opposite party produced a receipt and the same is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the consignee himself acknowledged on Ext. B1 that the transported goods were received to them in good condition. Further more, opposite party has not raised any objection regarding packing of the goods or its conditions at the time of receipt of the goods. Once goods are received in a packed condition as the transporting agent opposite party has a bounden duty to deliver the goods in same condition. Near printing the words “booked at owner’s risk” does not means that opposite party has no responsibility of the goods carried by them. The other contention put forth by the opposite party is that the goods are used, old and have no commercial value. We are of the opinion that opposite party cannot say that the goods have no commercial value. The question whether the goods is having a depreciation of its value is a matter to be looked while fixing quantum of damage. The other contention raised by the opposite party is that the goods are damaged due to the careless handling of the petitioner from the delivery point at Kottayam to Kothanalloor is also not sustainable. Because after the receipt of the consignment petitioner and the opposite party noted that it was damaged. Further more, opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove that goods were damaged due to its transportation from Kottayam to Kothanalloor. In our view act of the opposite party in not delivering the entrusted article in good condition amount to deficiency in service. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2. In view of the finding in point No. 1, petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled to relief sought for. Even though petitioner claims an amount of Rs. 13,900/- as compensation. We are of the view that allowing a compensation of Rs. 8,000/- is reasonable. In the result, opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of -4- Rs. 8000/- as compensation. Rs. 1000/- is ordered to as litigation cost. Opposite party is ordered to pay the cost and compensation with within one month of the receipt of the copy of the order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 11th day of November, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Document for the petitioner Ext. A1: Receipt No. 320146170 Ext. A2: Receipt Dtd: 13..6..2009 vide No. 1574292 Ext. A3: Copy of the letter issued by N.B Jose to the first opposite party Ext. A4: Reply letter issued by the second opposite party to the petitioner Ext. A5: Cash bill Dtd: 3..10..2006 Documents for the opposite party Ext. B1: Receipt No. 320146170 Ext. B2: Copy of receipt Dtd: 13..6..2009 Ext. B3: Copy of letter Dtd: 3..7..2009 issued by the second opposite party to the petitioner. By Order, Senior Superintendent Received on / Despatched on amp/ 5 cs. | 
