O R D E R  

(As per Mrs. Varsha R.Bale, Member)

Brief facts :

1. It is the case of the Complainant that he had engaged the services of Opposite Party for relocating his household goods from his residence in Mumbai to his new residence in Goa on 27/11/2013.

    

2. That the date of delivery of those household goods was on 04/12/2013. The Opposite Party had charged him an amount of Rs. 18,400/-

3. That on the delivery of the said items he found that his Television set was stolen and replaced with damaged non-working television set. He immediately reported this to Opposite Party for the damage he suffered due to the negligence of the Opposite Party. That even at the time of loading the goods and delivering the same, the Opposite Party staff had harassed him and made him to pay the entire amount at the time of loading.

    

4. That the goods were delivered to the Complainant through some other transport and that the goods were not even unloaded by the Opposite Party. He had to hire people to shift the entire household goods in the house by paying Rs. 4,000/- as labour charges.

5. That the Complainant notified several times about the damaged television delivered to him to which the Opposite Party neglected. They even refused to answer his calls, so, the Complainant filed the complaint before this Forum.

6. The notice served on Opposite Party 1 & Opposite Party 2 returned back with remark ‘unclaimed’ which was treated as a good service and the Opposite Party’s were marked ex-parte on 03/09/2014.

7. Perused the Complaint, the documents, written version, affidavit in evidence and Written argument filed by the Complainant. Mr. Paresh D.Shirodkar, Son and representative of Complainant argued on behalf of the Complainant.

8. From the perusal of the records and considering the oral arguments, it is seen that the Complainant engaged the services of Opposite Party’s to relocate the household goods to Goa from Mumbai. But on delivery the Complainant noticed that his new Philips TV was changed with some old non-working TV of Onida make. Inspite of Complainant’s report of replacing old T.V. the Opposite Party’s neglected and failed to replace his T.V. set or to pay the damages.

9. It is to be noted that the O.P .has not raised any defence before this Hon’ble Forum and failed to file written version to defend them. It clearly shows that the Complaint filed by the Complainant is undisputed and unchallenged. Secondly, the document on which the Complainant relied upon clearly shows the negligence on the part of Opposite Party.

10. That the Complainant received the old T.V. by making endorsement on the ‘List of household items’ while taking delivery that he is receiving the old Onida T.V. in place of new Philips T.V. Even the Complainant sent e-mails and letter to Opposite Party for several times. But the Opposite Party neglected to it. This shows the negligence of the Opposite Party. Because of such a act of Opposite Party, the Complainant suffered monetary as well as mental tension and hardship.

11. We are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in the service committed by Opposite Party. This is the irresponsible and negligent behavior of Opposite Party. The Opposite Party even neglected to the requests of Complainant and failed to deliver his T.V. set.

In the circumstances and for the reasons discussed above, we pass the following

ORDER

1. The Opposite Party’s are jointly and severally directed to replace with the new Philip’s T.V. to the Complainant or to pay the cost of Rs.8,000/- of said T.V. with interest from 28/10/2013till final payment.

    

2. The Opposite Party’s are also directed to pay the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant. If the said amounts are not paid after the appeal period is over the same will carry the interest of 12% p.a.

    

   Pronounced in open court. Proceedings closed.