Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

367/2010

M/s.Camera Citi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manger, United India Insurance Co Ltd & others - Opp.Party(s)

V.P.Rajendran

03 Jan 2019

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 07.10.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 03.01.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT                

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.367/2010

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 03^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019

                                 

M/s. Camera CITI,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.54, Cathedral Road,

Opp. Hotel Chola,

Chennai – 600 006.                                                      .. Complainant.                                                   

 

                                                                                        ..Versus..

1. The General Manager,

United India Insurance Co. Limited,

No.24, Whites Road,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

United India Insurance Co. Ltd,

No.33, Whites Road, III Floor,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

3. The Manager,

JET AIRWAYS (India) Limited,

S.M. Centre, Kurla Road

Andheri,

Mumbai – 400 059.

 

4. S. Abubacker,

Atlanta Cottage,

Near Cellular Jail,

Port Blair,

Andaman – 744 104.                                               ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                 :  M/s. P. Srija & others

Opposite parties  1 & 2                   :  Exparte

Counsel for the 3^rd opposite party  :  M/s. Gupta & another

Counsel for the 4^th opposite party  :  Deleted as per CMP

                                                             No.284/2013 dated:27.08.2014

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.6,78,834/- being the value of the goods insured  with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of claim and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and suffering with cost of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that the complainant is doing the business of selling camera and electronic parts in the name and style of M/s. Camera City for his livelihood.   The complainant submits that the 4^th opposite party has placed an order dated:20.01.2007 for the following items worth Rs.4,41,700/- which reads as follows:

Description of goods	Quantity	Rate	Per	Amount
AD-44 Main Circuit Board of Sony 450P	1 No.	35,450.00	Nos.	35,450.00
DA23 Main Circuit Board for Sony 450P	1 No.	31,750.00	Nos.	31,750.00
MY-41 Main Circuit Board for Sony 450P	1 No.	52,500.00	Nos.	52,500.00
PU69 Main Circuit board for Sony 450P	1 No.	32,450.00	Nos.	32,450.00
SY-146 Main Circuit Board for Sony 450P	1 No.	31,900.00	Nos.	31,900.00
KY-163 Main Circuit board for Sony 450P	1 No.	41,150.00	Nos.	41,150.00
Power Circuit board for Sony 450P	1 No.	30,560.00	Nos.	30,560.00
Servicing Sony DME 450P	1 No.	25,450.00	Nos.	25,450.00
Power circuit Board for Videonics mixer	1 No.	59,600.00	Nos.	59,600.00
Servicing Videonics	1 No.	25,800.00	Nos.	25,800.00
Main circuit Board for AMIGA A 1200 Titler	1 No.	47,250.00	Nos.	47,250.00
Servicing Amiga A 1200	1 No.	27,850.00	Nos.	27,850.00
Total	12 Nos.			4,41,700.00

 

The complainant states that the said items were billed vide invoice No.1528 dated:13.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.6,78,834/- including VAT and the goods were insured with the opposite parties 1 & 2 for a sum of Rs.7,46,717/- for the due coverage of the entire value of the goods Rs. 6,78,834/- and paid a premium of Rs.1,494/- policy No.012501/21/07/01/0000063 from 14.07.2007.   The complainant submits that the said items were packed in 3 carton boxes and send through the 3^rd opposite party Jet Airways to the 4^th opposite party vide Air bill dated:14.07.2007, No.589- 8553-6080.   The complainant submits that the 4^th opposite party informed the complainant that the carton boxes were damaged and not in condition at the time of delivery by the 3^rd opposite party and returned the items to the complainant and requested for the refund of entire goods value.   The complainant and the 4^th opposite party sent repeated letters to the 3^rd opposite party explained the condition of the carton boxes resulting damaged condition of the items and informed the insurance company for a due appointment of surveyor.   M/s. Met Calfe of Hodgkinson (P) Limited was appointed as surveyor who inspected the equipments and submitted the report requested estimate for repairing, assembling and servicing charges dated:02.11.2007.  The Globus Service Centre submitted a technical report on 31.10.2007.  Even after repeated requests, the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not taken any steps; on the other hand, the Surveyor, Metcalfe of Hogdkinson (P) Limited requested the complainant to submit the quotation for assembling, repairing and services.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 also submitted the quotation dated:12.01.2009.   The complainant submits that after the receipt of quotation the opposite parties 1 & 2 had a discussion with the complainant.   But has not come forward to settle the claim and sent a letter dated:03.06.2010 stating that the complainant is not co-operative.  The  act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.     In spite of receipt of notice by the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not chosen to appear before this Forum to answer the claim of the complainant by way of filing written version and hence the opposite parties 1 & 2 called absent set Exparte.

3.     As per the order in CMP 284/2013, dated:27.08.2014, the 4^th opposite party is deleted from the party array. 

4.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  3^rd opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 3^rd opposite party states that the goods were booked and was delivered to the 4^th opposite party at Fort Blair.  But the 3^rd opposite party is not aware of the facts that the goods were insured with the opposite parties 1 & 2 for the value of Rs.6,78,834/-.  The 3^rd opposite party states that the goods were consigned on 14.7.2007.  The 3^rd opposite party states that the goods were delivered in a good condition at Port Blair.  The 3^rd opposite party states that the complainant had booked to transport 2 boxes and not 3 boxes containing digital systems to Port Blair in the name of the 4rd opposite party.  In fact, the letter dated:12.04.2010 relied upon by the complainant allegedly addressed to the  3^rd opposite party has not even been received by us and as such cannot be commented upon. Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is the compensation claimed is exorbitant.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A26 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the 3^rd opposite party is filed and no documents marked on the side of the 3^rd opposite party.

6.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.6,78,834/- being the value of goods insured with interest at the rate of 12% as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.50,000/- as prayed for?

7.      On point:-

The opposite parties 1 & 2 remained Exparte.   As per the order in CMP 284/2013, the 4^th opposite party is deleted from the party array.  Both complainant and 3^rd opposite party filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel also. Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is doing the business of selling camera and electronic parts in the name and style of M/s. Camera City for his livelihood is not denied.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the 4^th opposite party has placed an order dated:20.01.2007 for the following items worth Rs.4,41,700/- which reads as follows:

Description of goods	Quantity	Rate	Per	Amount
AD-44 Main Circuit Board of Sony 450P	1 No.	35,450.00	Nos.	35,450.00
DA23 Main Circuit Board for Sony 450P	1 No.	31,750.00	Nos.	31,750.00
MY-41 Main Circuit Board for Sony 450P	1 No.	52,500.00	Nos.	52,500.00
PU69 Main Circuit board for Sony 450P	1 No.	32,450.00	Nos.	32,450.00
SY-146 Main Circuit Board for Sony 450P	1 No.	31,900.00	Nos.	31,900.00
KY-163 Main Circuit board for Sony 450P	1 No.	41,150.00	Nos.	41,150.00
Power Circuit board for Sony 450P	1 No.	30,560.00	Nos.	30,560.00
Servicing Sony DME 450P	1 No.	25,450.00	Nos.	25,450.00
Power circuit Board for Videonics mixer	1 No.	59,600.00	Nos.	59,600.00
Servicing Videonics	1 No.	25,800.00	Nos.	25,800.00
Main circuit Board for AMIGA A 1200 Titler	1 No.	47,250.00	Nos.	47,250.00
Servicing Amiga A 1200	1 No.	27,850.00	Nos.	27,850.00
Total	12 Nos.			4,41,700.00

 

Further the contention of the complainant is that the said items were billed vide invoice No.1528 dated:13.07.2007 as per Ex.A3 for a sum of Rs.6,78,834/- including VAT and the goods were insured with the opposite parties 1 & 2 for a sum of Rs.7,46,717/- for the due coverage of the entire value of the goods Rs. 6,78,834/- and paid a premium of Rs.1,494/- policy No.012501/21/07/01/0000063 from 14.07.2007 as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 Further the contention of the complainant is that the said items were packed in 3 carton boxes and send through the 3^rd opposite party Jet Airways to the 4^th opposite party vide Air bill dated:14.07.2007, No.589- 8553-6080 as per Ex. A7 series is also not denied.   

8.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the 4^th opposite party informed the complainant that the cotton boxes were damaged and not in condition at the time of delivery by the 3^rd opposite party and returned the items to the complainant and as per Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 and requested for the refund of the amount.   The complainant and the 4^th opposite party sent repeated letters to the 3^rd opposite party explained the condition of the carton boxes resulting damaged condition of the items and informed the insurance company for due appointment of surveyor.   M/s. Met Calfe of Hodgkinson (P) Limited was appointed as surveyor who inspected the equipments and submitted the report requested estimate for repairing, assembling and servicing charges as per Ex.A8 dated:02.11.2007.  The Globus Service Centre submitted a technical report as per Ex.A9 on 31.10.2007 as per Ex.A10.  Even after repeated requests, the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not taken any steps; on the other hand, the Surveyor, Metcalfe of Hogdkinson (P) Limited requested the complainant to submit the quotation for assembling, repairing and service vide repair and service as per Ex.A11, Ex.A13, Ex.A15, Ex.A16,  Ex.A18, Ex.A19 & Ex.A21.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 also submitted the quotation dated:12.01.2009 as per Ex.A20. Further the contention of the complainant is that after the receipt of quotation the opposite parties 1 & 2 had a discussion with the complainant as per Ex.A24.   But has not come forward to settle the claim and issued Ex.A26, letter dated:03.06.2010 stating that the complainant is not cooperative proves the unfair trade practice.  On the other hand, admittedly, the opposite parties 1 & 2 appointed a surveyor and noted all the damages and called for the quotation for due repair and service.  The 3^rd opposite party also has not taken any positive steps to settle the claim proves the deficiency in service.  Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this case claiming the value of the goods of Rs.6,78,834/- with a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

9.     The opposite parties 1 & 2 evenafter making all series correspondence and even after the receipt of the notice from this Forum remained Exparte.  The 3^rd opposite party appeared and contented that admittedly, the goods were booked vide Ex.A7 was delivered to the 4^th opposite party at Fort Blair; the 3^rd opposite party is not aware of the facts that the goods were insured with the opposite parties 1 & 2 for the value of Rs.6,78,834/-.  Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the goods were consigned on 14.7.2007.  This case is filed on 07.10.2010 which is more than 2 years and is barred by limitation.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A26, the opposite parties 1 & 2 Insurance Company repudiated the claim only on 03.06.2010 proves that the case is filed within time and the case is not barred by limitation.   Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the goods were delivered in a good condition.  The allegation that the carton boxes were delivered in a damp condition only after 3 years through the 4^th opposite party as such the goods were not working; is not acceptable.  Because the 4^th opposite party as per Ex.A4 & Ex.A5 informed the complainant regarding the damp condition of the goods and was retuned immediately the complainant informed the 3^rd opposite party and inturn the opposite parties 1 & 2 appointed a surveyor who inspected the damaged goods and called for quotations for repair and services.  Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is the compensation claimed is exorbitant.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,41,700/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint to till the date of order with a compensation of Rs.35,000/- and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.4,41,700/- (Rupees Four lakhs forty one thousand seven hundred only) being the value of goods / items along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of complaint (i.e.) 24.08.2010 to till the date of this order (i.e.) 03.01.2019 and to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty five thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 03^rd day of January 2019. 

 

MEMBER-II                                                                   PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	12.07.2007	Copy of Quotation
Ex.A2	13.07.2007	Copy of Maritime Policy copy
Ex.A3	13.07.2007	Copy of Tax invoice
Ex.A4	21.07.2007	Copy of letter from S. Abubacker to the complainant
Ex.A5	22.07.2007	Copy of letter from S. Abubacker to the complainant
Ex.A6	30.07.2007	Copy of letter sent by the complainant to United India Insurance Company Limited
Ex.A7	05.08.2007	Copy of Jet Airway bill
Ex.A8	02.11.2007	Copy of letter from Metcalfe and Hadkinson (P)  Ltd
Ex.A9	11.11.2007	Copy of technical report furnished by Globe Service Centre
Ex.A10	31.10.2007	Copy of Technical report furnished CMS Computers Ltd to the complainant
Ex.A11	15.12.2007	Copy of letter from Metcalfe and Hadkinson (P)  Ltd
Ex.A12	25.02.2008	Copy of letter from the complainant to Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company (P) Ltd
Ex.A13	05.05.2008	Copy of letter from Metcalfe and Hadkinson (P)  Ltd
Ex.A14	20.06.2006	Copy of the 1st remainder letter by the complainant to the Branch Manager, United Indian Insurance Co.
Ex.A15	07.07.2008	Copy of letter from Metcalfe and Hadkinson (P)  Ltd
Ex.A16	09.09.2008	Copy of letter from Metcalfe and Hadkinson (P)  Ltd to the complainant
Ex.A17	25.09.2008	Copy of the remained of the complainant to the Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co Ltd
Ex.A18	11.11.2008	Copy of letter from Metcalfe and Hadkinson (P)  Ltd
Ex.A19	11.12.2008	Copy of letter from Metcalfe and Hadkinson (P)  Ltd
Ex.A20	12.01.2009	Copy of Quotation from the Citi Service Centre to the complainant
Ex.A21	17.01.2009	Copy of letter from Metcalfe and Hadkinson (P)  Ltd
Ex.A22	30.09.2009	Copy of letter from the complainant to the Branch Manager, United India Insurance co. Ltd.
Ex.A23	25.03.2010	Copy of the letter sent by the complainant to United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
Ex.A24	01.04.2010	Copy of letter from the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. to the complainant
Ex.A25	12.04.2010	Copy of the letter from the complainant to the Manager, Jet Airways
Ex.A26	03.06.2010	Copy of the letter from the United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

 

3^RD OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER-II                                                                   PRESIDENT