D.O.F. 28.05.2011
D.O.O.14.10.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari : Member
Smt. M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 14th day of October 2011.
C.C.No.174/2011
K.Pradeepan,
S/o.Late.K.Krishnan
“Saawariya’,
Illathuthazhe, Thiruvangad,
Thalassery Complainant
(Rep. by Adv. John Joseph)
1. The Managing Director,
GATI Limited, 1-7-293, MG Road,
Secundrabad 500 003.
2. Manager,
GATI Limited,
Kannur Branch, Thottada Opposite Parties
O R D E R
Sri.K.Gopalan, President
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of `56,000 with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of filing of the complaint together with cost of this proceedings.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: Complainant had entrusted the house hold article to Itangar Branch office of the opposite party for the purpose of transporting the same to the residence of the complainant at Kannur District.When the complainant went to Kannur Branch office of the opposite party to take delivery of the article it was found that the article was badly damaged. At the time of booking, the complainant packed the articles in eight wooden boxes to avoid damages. But from Kannur branch one of the boxes was received without the protective wooden box in which the article was sent. All the articles sent in the box was received in badly damaged condition. Two other boxes were received in opened condition but the locks of the said two boxes were found intact. The boxes were opened by removing the hinches attached to the wooden boxes. Altogether there were eight boxes. The five boxes were also in badly damaged condition due to the pressing. Out of the articles sent by the complainant one tread Mill Machine manufactured by Welcare Company, Coimbatore was completely destroyed during transportation one micro wave oven, one Induction cooker. One iron box and a new churidar were found missing on inspection of the boxes received at Kannur. Immediately complainant registered a complaint before the respondent company through its toll free telephone number 10555234. Subsequently a revised complaint number 10535706 also lodged. In pursuance of the said complaint the opposite party company deputed a surveyor and photographs of the damaged articles were taken by him and valuation statement also prepared quantifying the loss as `31,675. In fact the actual loss suffered by the complainant was more than 50,000. After the survey 2nd opposite party represented that the loss assessed by the surveyor would immediately paid. Since there was no response even if opposite party company was contacted by the complainant several occasions. Lawyer notice dt.21.1.11 was sent to 1st opposite party demanding payment of `50,000 including compensation for mental pain ad agony. They sent reply stating that final reply would send immediately on getting the report from the concerned branch office. But even after three months there is no positive response. Hence this complaint.
On receiving the complaint Forum sent notice to all the parties. On the first hearing day 8.7.2011 opposite parties were represented by a counsel offering vakalath. The matter was then posted to 22.7.2011 for version and vakalth. On that day opposite parties did not file version but represented without filing vakalath. The matter posted for steps on 4.8.2011. On that day also opposite parties were represented merely but vakalth or version did not file. On the subsequent posting dates 16.8.2011 and 31.8.2011 also repeated the same and the matter posted to 16.9.2011 for affidavit and evidence. On that day also opposite parties were represented by one advocate without fling vakalth but no steps were taken. Complainant’s side affidavit filed and evidence taken by marking Exts.A1 to A4. It was then posted for hearing on 28.9.10. On that day also one counsel represented without filing vakalth. Since there was no effective representation for and on behalf of opposite parties the complainant was heard and the matter posted for orders on 14.10.2011.
The main question to be considered is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and if so what is the liability? The wife of the complainant adduced evidence by way of affidavit in tune with the pleadings. She has stated that the complainant had entrusted the opposite party the house hold articles in 8 boxes to sent to the branch office of opposite party in Kannur on payment of `9,932. Ext.A1 receipt issued by1st opposite party proves the payment. It is also proves that the complainant entrusted 8 number of packages on 6.5.10 to opposite party for delivery at Kannur. Witness further states that the articles were packed in 8 wooden boxes for which they had spent `6000. She has also stated that at the time when the witness and her husband went to Kanur branch for collection of the article they could see all the boxes entrusted with the opposite party were damaged. The articles inside the box were seen damaged severely. They could see totally damaged one box and its articles and two other open boxes. It was also seen that lock of those two boxes were intact and hinches attached to the box are badly damaged. The other boxes were also damaged due to pressing. The affidavit evidence continue to state that one tread mill machine was completely destroyed and one micro wave oven, one induction cooker, one iron box and a new churidar were found missing. The loss of article and the incident of damage were happen due to deliberate act of the employees of the opposite party. Ext.A1 has recorded that the complainant received damaged boxes. It is recorded in Ext.A1 that out of 8 boxes, one item received without box and broken condition, two boxes received in open condition and others are damaged by pressing condition.
Ext.A2 is the inspection report Mr.T.Rajeevan, Surveyor/loss assessor at the request of M/s.Gati Ltd./2nd opposite party conducted the inspection and assessed the loss. The summary of his report reads thus:
Assessed loss : 31,675
Salvage value : 2,000
: 29,675
Adjusted loss : 29,675
Report shows that he has submitted his report with the following Enclosures;
1. Copy of L.R
2. Quotation for Tread Mill
3. Copy of Warranty card of Tread Mill
4. Photographs
5. Fee bill
The report Ext.A2 reveals that the complainant has at least suffered a loss of `29675. Ext.A3 is the legal notice sent by complainant calling upon to pay `60000. EXt.B4 reply of 1st opposite party assured the complainant that the moment when they get the report from the concerned branch they would send him the final reply. But apart from the reply 1st opposite party had not been acted positively and done anything to meet the grievances of the complainant. The legal notice Ext.A3 sent by complainant has narrated the incident in details and raised the allegations as he pleaded in the complaint. Damaged articles without boxes and damaged articles within the two boxes and damaged other boxes, loss of Tread Mil, Induction cooker, One iron box and one churidar etc. has brought to the notice of 1st opposite party by Ext.A3. Nothing was denied by 1st opposite party in his reply Ext.A4. Hence the circumstances reveal that opposite parties are well aware of the loss sustained by the complainant and they kept away from the proceedings of this Forum purposefully.
The available evidence on record quite clearly reveals that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Complainant is entitled for the damages. It is also true that his family and he might have suffered much mental pain and agony for which they are entitled for damages. The surveyor has assesses an amount of `29675. The report Ext.A2 goes to show that it is a reasonable assessment. Taking into consideration the mental pain and sufferings he is also entitled for an amount of `5000 as compensation. To make it as a round figure we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled for an amount of `35000 as compensation including the cost of litigation. Hence the order passed in favour of complainant.
It is therefore the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay an amount of `35,000( Rupees Thirty five thousand only) as compensation to complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which opposite parties are liable to pay 12% interest right from the date of complaint till realization of the amount. Complainant is entitled to execute the order after the expiry of 30 days as per the provisos of consumer protection Act.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Receipt issued by the OP dt.6.5.10.
A2. Copy of the investigation report prepared by the surveyor with
photos
A3. Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP
A4.Reply notice
Postal receipt dated 24.11.08.
A4. Postal acknowledgment 26.11.08.
A5. Postal acknowledgement dated 01.12.08.
Exhibits for the opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined for either side: Nil /forwarded by order/
Senior Superintendent
