Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/426/2014

Gurjeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Agarwal Packers and Movers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

16 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/426/2014
Date  of  Institution	:	01/07/2014
Date of  Decision	:	16/02/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gurjeet Singh, H.No.1407, 1st Floor, Sector 42-B, Chandigarh.

Complainant.

Vs

1.      The Manager, Agarwal Packers & Movers Limited, 181/18, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh.

2.      The Managing Director, Agarwal Packers & Movers Limited, 3rd Floor, Kabra Complex, 61 M.G. Road, Secundrabad – 500003 Andhra Pradesh.

 Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	P.L.AHUJA	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

 

Argued by	:	Sh. N.P. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
	:	Sh. Mahendra Singh, Advocate for the OPs alongwith Sh. Sanjay Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

 

PER P.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Gurjeet Singh, Complainant, has filed this Consumer Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the Manager, Agarwal Packers and Movers Limited & Anr., opposite parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that on 26.04.2014, he had availed the services of OPs for moving his household goods, from Pune to Punjab, by paying a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- vide Receipt Annexure-I. Annexure-II and III appended with the Complaint are the lists of items and the insurance declarations & consignment note respectively. It has been alleged that due to the deficient services rendered by the OPs, not only the goods were received late, but goods worth Rs.1,31,800/- as mentioned in Annexure IV were also found missing from the consignment. The complainant took up the matter with the OPs to make good his loss through letter dated 10.06.2014 (Annexure-V), but to no avail. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.         In their joint written statement, OPs have admitted that the complainant had booked his household articles on 26.4.2014 for shifting from Pune to Chandigarh. It has been contended that only estimated time is given to the customers to transport their consignment together which includes abnormal delay and/or delay caused by unforeseen circumstances beyond their control. It has been asserted that the complainant had given his due acknowledgement by putting his signatures on the delivery challan at the time of delivery of the household articles at his premises without mentioning any remark in regard to alleged missing items and delay in delivery, which prove that the goods were received by him in OK condition. It has been pleaded that even the Police refused to lodge the complaint of the Complainant on the ground that some of the household articles as claimed by him to have been lost were not found mentioned in the list of items prepared by the OPs. It has been averred that as per the terms & conditions, valuables i.e. jewellery, precious items, gold ornaments, cash etc. are not taken by the OPs for the purpose of forwarding/shifting. The remaining averments have been denied, being wrong.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         In his rejoinder, the complainant has controverted the stand of the OPs and reiterated his own. It has been pleaded that the OPs did not even point out any terms and conditions printed on the reverse side of the receipts nor got the same signed after reading in acknowledgement thereof.  It has further been pleaded that on account of delay in delivery of household goods on 6.5.2014 and car on 22.5.2014, the complainant was made to unnecessarily spend money on extension of his hotel stay as also for hiring of taxies during the period in question.
4.         We have appraised the entire evidence, written submissions on behalf of the complainant and heard the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
5.         It is the admitted case of the OPs that the complainant had booked a consignment on 26.4.2014 with the OPs.  A list of the household articles Annexure II was prepared and those articles were to be transported from Pune to Chandigarh.  It is also the admitted case of the OPs that the consignment consisted of household goods and a car and the complainant paid Rs.1,25,000/- to the OPs vide receipt copy of which is Annexure I. The grievance of the complainant is two-fold.  According to the complainant, after the receipt of the goods, he found that the goods worth Rs.1,31,800/- were missing from the consignment as per list Annexure IV.  Secondly, it has also been contended on behalf of the complainant that since the household goods were delivered on 6.5.2014, on account of this delay on the part of the OPs, the complainant, who arrived at Chandigarh by air on 27.4.2014, had to stay in G.J. Hotels Pvt. Ltd. and had to spend an amount of Rs.57,938/-.  Further, on account of delayed delivery of the car on 22.5.2014, complainant had to travel by taxi and spend an amount of Rs.22,982/- vide details at Annexure C-10.
6.         As far as the question of refund of the amount of Rs.1,31,800/- towards the missing goods is concerned, pertinently the complainant has produced the list at Annexure IV containing the following items which were allegedly found missing after the contents of 70 cartons containing the household goods were verified :-

S.No.	Items	Value
1.	Digital camera (2 No.)	25000
2.	Digital Photo Frame	9800
3.	Silver items
	a. coins	15000
	b. utensils	5000
	c. Worship Idols	15000
4.	Woolen clothes	7000
5.	Bed sheets & curtains (New) – 7	15000
6.	Kids clothes	5000
7.	Wrist watches – 3	6500
8.	Cross Pens – 4	8500
9.	Hand bags	5000
10.	Piggy Banks (with cash)	5000
11.	Artificial jewellery & pearl set	10000
	Total Value	131800

 

 

 

 

 

 

       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, we find from the list of the household articles at Annexure II, produced by the complainant, that the alleged missing articles in Annexure IV are not included in the same. In other words, when the articles mentioned in Annexure IV were not packed, as per the packing list Annexure II, we fail to understand as to how the complainant can allege that the same were found missing. OPs have specifically alleged in para 4 of the preliminary submissions of their written statement that the complainant had gone to police station, Chandigarh to lodge the complaint against them but the police officials at Chandigarh had refused to lodge the said complaint because some of the household goods alleged to have been lost/missing/damaged were not found mentioned in the list of items prepared by the OPs in consultation with the complainant.  The complainant in his rejoinder affidavit has admitted that he approached the local police meaning thereby the police refused to lodge a complaint against the OPs because there was no sufficient evidence of the goods in question having packed and transported through the OPs. The OPs have produced the copies of the terms and conditions alongwith the receipt by the complainant which show that the complainant had not received only two items at Sr.No.69 and 70 (baby cycles).  It is also mentioned that the seal was okay. The list attached with the terms and conditions at Ex.RW-1/3 shows that at Sr.No.69 & 70 two baby cycles of the value of Rs.2,500/- each are mentioned.  In this view of the matter, the deficiency in service of the OPs can be inferred only to the extent that two baby cycles of the value of Rs.5,000/- of the complainant were found missing for which he is entitled to be compensated.

7.         We may mention that the OPs have raised an objection that the valuables i.e. jewellery items, gold ornaments, cash etc. were not covered by them to be forwarded/transported under their policy as clearly mentioned in the terms and conditions.  According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the terms and conditions were not got signed from the complainant by the OPs earlier but at the time of handing over of the household goods.  Furthermore, he has placed reliance on M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Skypak Couriers Pvt. Ltd., Original Petition No.66 of 1992 decided on 14.12.2001 by the Hon’ble National Commission and Tip top Dry Cleaners Vs. Sunil Kumar, Revision Petition No.1328 of 2003 decided on 2.5.2003 by the Hon’ble National Commission and has contended that the conditions printed on the back of receipt, which is in the shape of small and fine prints, do not amount to a binding contract
8.         There is no dispute with the proposition of law laid down in the above cited two rulings, but as we have already observed, since there is no positive evidence to prove that the articles mentioned in the list Annexure IV were actually packed and entrusted to the OPs for transportation, therefore, we cannot draw any inference of deficiency in service if the alleged articles were found missing.
9.         Adverting to the question of delay in delivery of household goods on 6.5.2014 and delivery of car on 22.5.2014, it has been contended by the OPs in their written statement that the delay occurred was beyond their control or by unforeseen circumstances.  It has been pleaded by the OPs in their written statement that they did their job in approximate possible time and the circumstances fall under the purview of the force majeure clause beyond their control. However, the OPs have not produced even a single document to prove as to why the household goods, which were consigned on 26.4.2014 reached Chandigarh on 6.5.2014 despite the fact that the complainant was given time limit of 3-4 days.  Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence to this effect that the car could be delivered to the complainant on 22.5.2014 on account of the reasons beyond the control of the OPs. It is quite obvious that the complainant had to extend the stay in the hotel and he had to travel by taxi and incur expenses on account of delayed delivery of the household goods and the car.  We feel that the ends of justice would be met if an amount of Rs.25,000/- only is paid to the complainant as compensation for harassment and deficiency in service on account of the delay in delivery of the household goods and car to him.
10.         We may mention that the complainant has also cited one ruling titled Aggarwal Packers and Movers DRS Transport (P) Ltd. Vs. Renu Sharma, Revision Petition No.2330 of 2009 decided on 2.5.2011 by the Hon’ble National Commission in support of his contention that he is entitled to the recovery of the amount prayed by him in the complaint.  However, after going through the said ruling, we find that in that case the compensation was granted after appraising the evidence of that case and that ruling has no applicability to the facts of the present case.
11.         For the reasons recorded above, we find merit in the complaint and the same is partly allowed.  The OPs are directed as under :-
    1. To refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- on account of the loss of two baby cycles of the complainant.
    2. To pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony, harassment and deficiency in service.
    3. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards litigation costs.
12.         This order shall be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; thereafter OPs shall pay the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization by the complainant, besides payment of litigation costs.
13.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
16.02.2015	[Surjeet Kaur]	[P. L. Ahuja]
hg	Member	President