DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  5^th day of April, 2023 

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                  :  Smt. Vidya A., Member                        

                  :  Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 20/08/2020  

                         CC/90/2020

Sunil Swaminathan,

V/568, Nandanam,

Harithanagar,

Kazhchaparambu,

Kannadi – II

Palakkad – 678 701                                              -                       Complainant

       (By Adv. C. Sreekumar)

                                                                                                Vs

1. Managing Director,

DD Packers & Movers,

BO HAL Nagar, P.No.149-5,

Old Bowenpalli,

Secunderabad, Telangana – 500 011

2. Managing Director,

Rivigo Services Pvt.Ltd.,

Sector 44, Near HUDA City Centre,

Gurgaon – 122 063

3. The Proprietor,

DD Packers & Movers,

Head Office, Plot No.2,

Sector 86, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 004        -                       Opposite parties

            (O.P.s 1& 3 No representation

              O.P.2 by Adv. Manoj Ambat

O R D E R

By  Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Complaint pleadings, stated briefly, are that he engaged the O.P.s to have his house hold articles transported from Telangana to Palakkad on 30/05/2020. Consignments were delivered with undue delay only on 01/07/2020. Due to careless handling, complainant’s TV suffered damages. Staff of the 2^nd  O.P. were not ready and willing to unpack and arrange the articles in the house of the complainant and they had to be persuaded to do so.  Aggrieved thereby on multiple counts, this complaint is filed.
2. Opposite Parties 1 and 3 did not enter appearance nor file version.
3. O.P.2 filed a detailed version. They admitted to receiving the consignments on 30/05/2020 from O.P. 1 and admitted delay. But they attributed the delay to Covid pandemic. They are silent as to the cause of the damage caused to the TV and the date on which the consignments were delivered. They further contented that the complainant had not come with clean hands and that this Commission has no authority to adjudicate on this dispute.
4. The following issues arise for consideration:

1.         Whether the complaint suffers any legal impediment?

2.         Whether the complainant could prove any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s?

3.         Whether there is any other deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s?

4.         Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?

5.         Any other Reliefs?

5. (i)                 Even after receiving ample opportunity, the complainant had failed to adduce any evidence.

Proof affidavit was ordered on 20/05/2022 and was posted to 01/07/2022 and thereafter to 04/08/2022. As the complainant was continuously absent without filing proof affidavit, evidence of complainant was closed and the matter was posted to 20/9/2022 for proof affidavit of opposite party.

On 20/09/2022, the complainant filed IA 447/2022 to reopen evidence.  This IA was allowed on 27/10/2022 with direction to file proof affidavit as a final chance to 30/11/2022. On 30/11/2022 also the complainant failed to file proof affidavit. Hence evidence was closed again.

On 13/1/2023, the complainant filed another IA as 32/23 to reopen evidence. Since the reasons stated in the said affidavit was a far cry from the factual situations, the said IA was dismissed.  

Hence, there is no evidence for complainant.

(ii)                               Opposite party 2 filed proof affidavit, but without statutory requirements like name of the authorized signatory and the date and place of verification. Hence the said proof affidavit was rejected.  Even though time was granted for filing of fresh proof affidavit from 30/11/2022 till 14/3/2023, the opposite party No.2 failed to file a fresh proof affidavit.

Thus, OP2 has also failed to adduce any evidence.     

Issue No.1                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

6.                     Even though the opposite party No.2 has raised the contention that this complaint is not maintainable, they have not stated the specific grounds under which they had resorted to this allegations. Hence, this issue has no merits. 

            Issue No.2

7.         As already stated supra, the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate their allegations of deficiency on the part of opposite parties.

Hence we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

            Issue No. 3

8.         Be as it may, albeit the complainant  having failed to prove his case by  way of cogent evidence, some omissions and contents in the version filed by the 2^nd opposite party makes is imperative  that the entire factual matrix be considered in the light of pleadings and counter pleadings.

9.         Per pleadings, complainant’s case is that he had effected booking with the opposite parties on 30/05/2020. The said consignments were delivered to him only on 01/07/2020.  To this pleading, the 2^nd opposite party filed their counter pleading stating that it was the period of Covid and 1^st opposite party had no right whatsoever to state that the consignment would be delivered within 7 days.  Even though the 2^nd  opposite party filed these counter pleadings, they had not adduced any evidence to substantiate their case by way of production of any circulars or documents that restricted their movement. They had also not brought forth any witness to substantiate their case.

                                    Thus we hold, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, that the delay of more than one month is unwarranted and not properly accounted for.

10.       The next ground of pleading is the damage caused to the TV with regard to this pleading also the 2^nd opposite party totally silent in their version they have not denied the pleadings with regard to the damage suffered by the complainant. The complainant had taken out an expert commissioner to ascertain the damages caused to the TV. Report filed by the expert commissioner was marked as Ext.C1. No objection what so ever is forthcoming from the opposite parties to Ext.C1.

Hence we are holding that the opposite party has admitted to the pleading of the complainant with regard to damages caused to the TV while in transit.

11.       In view of the discussion made supra, in paragraphs 8 to 10, we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3.

Issue No. 4

12.       The complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.4 lakhs  by way of compensation.  In the fact and circumstance of the case, we hold that this claim is exorbitant and unsupported by any evidentiary material. Complainant is not entitled to the said relief.  

            Issue No.5

13.       Resultant to the discussions made above, we hold that the complainant is entitled to the following reliefs:

1)         The complainant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen  thousand only) by way of compensation for delayed delivery of consignments.

2)         The complainant is entitled to Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) as the cost of TV which we tentatively fix, in the absence of any evidence regarding its price and depreciation thereof.

3)         The complainant is entitled to an interest @10% p.a. on the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/-  (Rupees Twenty five thousand only) from  1/07/2020 till the date of payment.

4)         The complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) for defective handling of the TV.  

5)         The complainant is entitled to cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

6)         The opposite parties are directed to pay this amount within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the opposite party shall pay a solatium of Rs.250/- per month or part thereof till the date of final payment.  

                  Pronounced in open court on this the 05^th day of April, 2023.    

      Sd/-

                                                                                                Vinay Menon V

                                                      President

       Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

       Sd/-                                                         Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                      Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant : Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:   Nil

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:  Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.