BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. P. SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 243/2011 Filed on 28.07.2011
ORDER DATED: 15.10.2015
Complainant:
Ahmed Ali, S/o Muhammed Ismail, residing at ‘Vazhappally Veedu’, Andoorkonam Village, Andoorkonam P.O, Thiruvananthapuram-695 584.
(By Adv. Issac Samuel)
Opposite parties:
- VRL Logistics Ltd., Regd: Corporate Office, Giriraj Annexe, Circuit House Road, Hubli, Karnataka-580 029, represented by its Managing Director.
- VRL Logistics Ltd., Branch Office, Kochar Road, Chenthittai, Thiruvananthapuram-695 036 represented by its Manager.
(By Adv. Raj Mohan. G.J)
This case having been heard on 17.08.2015, the Forum on 15.10.2015 delivered the following:
ORDER
SRI. P. SUDHIR: PRESIDENT
Complainant’s case is that complainant had purchased a brand new Whirlpool Front Load Washing Machine on 30.05.2011 for his personal use from Megha Agency Office No. 71/1, R.V. Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore-560 004 for an amount of Rs. 12,800/-. The said washing machine was thoroughly checked and verified by the complainant at the time of purchase and thereby convinced that there was no damage to the machine and thereby on the very same day the complainant entrusted the washing machine to the 1st opposite party for the delivery of the said article in Thiruvananthapuram district where the complainant resides. Accordingly the 1st opposite party packed and sealed the washing machine and arranged for the transit into their delivery branch office at Thiruvananthapuram which is the 2nd opposite party herein. Accordingly, the complainant availed himself of the service of the opposite parties by paying the charges. The 2nd opposite party received the washing machine through the freight service owned and managed by the 1st opposite party and delivered the same to the complainant. But the same was totally broken and damaged as and when delivered to the door of the complainant and thereby the same was not in a condition for use. Complainant immediately informed the said matter to the 2nd opposite party. But there were no effective steps on the part of the 2nd opposite party to rectify the damage or to compensate the loss. Besides, the complainant even sent mail to the 1st opposite party regarding the same. But there was no response from there. The complainant was constrained to approach the authorized service centre of Whirlpool, M/s ARJ Associates on 08.06.2011 through his son Shajeem for rectifying the defects at his own expenses. On verification, the technicians of the said M/s ARJ Associates informed the complainant that the damage of the washing machine could not be rectified since the over drum and the body of the washing machine were broken and four suspension springs were also damaged. They noted all those damage in their ‘service request’ also with an opinion that those types of damage were taken place and caused owing to the fact of throwing the washing machine from a consistent height in upside-down position in negligent manner. The complainant immediately informed to the 1st opposite party regarding the damage caused to the washing machine through telephone and e-mails. But only after repeated e-mails the 1st opposite party replied that they were not responsible for the damage. Complainant approached this Forum for getting the cost of the washing machine and compensation and costs.
Notice sent to opposite parties and opposite parties filed version and contested the matter. As per the version of the opposite parties, they have taken the contention that it is to be strictly proved by the complainant that at the time of purchasing the washing machine from Bangalore it was in a good condition. And at the same time after purchasing the said washing machine carried to the delivery office to the 1st opposite party at Bangalore from a long distance by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party delivered the said washing machine in as is where is condition i.e; as was given at the time of booking the consignment and it was taken away by the consignee from the office of the 2nd opposite party at his own risk. Complainant at his own risk took the said consignment to residence from 2nd opposite party. The damage caused cannot be attributed to this opposite party as the consignments are received for transportation in a packed condition and opposite parties as transporters would not be knowing the actual contents and the condition of the consignment. While entrusting the said washing machine to the opposite party, complainant carried it from a long distance and entrusted with opposite party to send to Thiruvananthapuram. While taking the said washing machine from the complainant’s home to Bangalore office or from Thiruvananthapuram to Pothencode, where the complainant resides, the alleged physical damage could have taken place. That the opposite party under due care carried it from Bangalore to Thiruvananthapuram. The complainant after thoroughly examining the same received the said consignment and it was taken to his house at Pothencode at his own risk, when the alleged physical damage might have taken place and not during the time by way of travelling from Bangalore to Thiruvananthapuram in which case, the complainant would not have received the same. This clearly shows that during the time of receiving the said washing machine from the 2nd opposite party there was no damage as alleged by the complainant. The said defects might have occurred at the hands of the complainant and in order to over commit a concocted story was made by the complainant is only to harass the opposite parties and to make unlawful gain. There is no deficiency in service or carelessness or negligence on the part of 1st and 2nd opposite parties to the complainant. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties have never done any breach of contract to the complainant and therefore they are not responsible for loss or damage caused to the complainant. The loss or damage caused to the complainant is only due to the carelessness of the consignor alone.
Points for consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P3 marked. Complainant not cross examined and opposite parties have not produced their evidence. Perused the evidence produced by the complainant and version of the opposite parties. The contention taken by the opposite parties that complainant has booked the washing machine in their logistic service on owner’s own risk. The condition of the washing machine before booking and after the delivery is not known to us. Complainant booked the article admitting the terms and conditions overleaf of Ext. P2. The complainant failed to prove that the damage caused to the washing machine when the washing machine was in the custody of opposite parties. Hence we are of the opinion that we have no other go, but to dismiss the complaint.
In the result, complaint is dismissed without costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of October 2015.
Sd/-
P.SUDHIR : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 243/2011
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
NIL
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Tax invoice No. 9773 dated 30.05.2011 issued by Megha Agency,
Bangalore.
P2 - Consignor’s copy of way bill No. 223655569 dated 30.05.2011
issued by the 1st opposite party.
P3 - Service request dated 08.06.2011
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
