Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

182/2012

R.Sukumarn, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director,CNI Logistics Pvt Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Dr.P.Vasudevan

10 May 2016

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  16.08.2012

                                                                Order pronounced on:  10.05.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

TUESDAY  THE  10^th  DAY OF MAY 2016

 

C.C.NO.182/2012

 

R.Sukumaran,

Son of late Mr. D.Ramamurthi,

New No.33, Old No.9, Warren Road,

Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

                                                                                            ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

	1.The Managing Director, CNI LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, (Packers and Movers) “JPR Palace” 25/1, 100 Feet Road, Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.   2. The Branch Manager, CNI LOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED S.No. 174/5, Mukkam Post, Thathawade, Tal. Mulshi, Pune – 411 033.
	...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                  21.08.2012

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. Dr.P. Vasudevan

Counsel for opposite party                      : M/s. Devadason & Sagar

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.SC., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant handed over 150 house hold articles and one Maruti Alto Car to the 2^nd Opposite Party for transportation from Pune to Chennai.  The total freight charges for the said article was Rs.43,000/- for a full load.  A sum of Rs.35,000/- was paid at Pune and the balance amount was paid on 06.02.2013. The domestic articles 136 was delivered to the Complainant as against 150 was booked on 07.06.2012. The car was delivered on 29.02.2012. Out of the delivered articles three articles do not belong to the Complainant and hence 17 articles yet to be delivered by the Opposite Party. They are plastic commando chairs, wooden chair, bed containing two woolen blankets with six pillows and 14 numbers card boxes containing domestic materials and personal belongings. Out of the delivered articles wooden almirah, DVD Disk cup boards, plastic tub and buckets and food items, provisions very badly damaged. The Complainant estimated the damage and cost of the materials not delivered is estimated at Rs.95,000/-  The damage to the articles and non delivery of articles and inordinate delay in delivering the articles proves that the Opposite Parties committed Deficiency in Service. Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint to direct the Opposite Party to deliver the undelivered articles and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          It is admitted that the Complainant approached the Opposite Parties for transport of the house hold articles and as per the terms and conditions found in the consignment note, the Opposite Parties also transported the articles and delivered to the Complainant. The Complainant also paid transportation charges for Rs.43,000/- viz. Rs.33,000/- on 24.01.2012 and the balance was paid on 06.02.2012. The Opposite Parties delivered the articles under the supervision of Mr.Boopathy along with his workers.  After they arranged the articles in the house as per the direction of the Complainant, the said Boopathy requested the Complainant for acknowledgement of the articles and for which he scolded the workers and asked them to get out of the compound and accordingly they left on 09.02.2012. The Opposite Parties sent a letter to the Complainant requesting for the acknowledgement and however he did not reply. Thus the non deliveries of 17 items of articles are imaginary.   Hence the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service and therefore they are not liable to pay any damages to the Complainant and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2.Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT:1

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant booked 150 articles under Ex.A1 lorry receipt and an Alto Car under Ex.A2 lorry receipt  at Pune and the same was transported to Chennai  for delivery to the Complainant and the Complainant paid towards the freight charges of Rs.35,000/- under Ex.A3 by way of cash and the balance was paid on 06.02.2012.

          5. According to the Complainant out of the 150 articles only 136 was delivered  to him on 07.02.2012   and out of which 3 articles do not belong to him  and the Opposite Parties yet to deliver 17 house hold articles  and in some of the delivered articles were in damaged conditions and the car was delivered on 29.02.2012  and the Complainant estimated the damage of the articles and the value of the articles yet to be delivered  around Rs.95,000/-  and even after issuing Ex.A5 legal notice the Opposite Parties have not delivered the article and hence this Complaint is filed against them.

          6. The Opposite Party would contend that in the agreement  there is a  clause for Arbitration and the Complainant approached the Forum without invoking  the same establishes this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint and further after delivery of the articles one Mr.Boopathy asked for the acknowledgement of the articles and for which the Complainant refused to sign for the same  and driven away the workers of the Opposite Parties  and the said Boopathy also gave Ex.B1 report to the 1^st Opposite Party  and then  the 1^st Opposite Party sent Ex.B2 letter  stating the incident narrated in Ex.B1 to the Complainant and however for  the said letter there was no reply from the Complainant and hence  the Opposite Parties have not committed  any Deficiency in Service.

          7. Admittedly the house hold article was delivered to the Complainant on 07.02.2012. The Complainant says that 17 articles of him were not delivered on that day. If such number of articles was not actually delivered, he could have immediately wrote a letter to the 1^st Opposite Party who is at  Chennai. However Supervisor Mr.Boopathy who delivered the articles along with other workers for Opposite Parties gave Ex.B1 letter to the 1^st Opposite Party that they were scolded and sent out of the house. Based on that letter, the 1^st Opposite Party written Ex.B2 letter on 09.02.2012 to the Complainant narrating the incident at the time of delivery. Only   after 40 days the Complainant sent legal notice to the Opposite Parties. The Complainant did not state anything about Ex.B2 legal notice in his Complaint. The Opposite Parties specifically stated in their written version filed on 04.02.2013 about the incident narrated in Ex.B1 & Ex. B2. Such a fact   was not denied by the Complainant in his proof affidavit which was filed on 11.06.2013 after 4 months of the filing of the written version. When the facts stated in the written version has not been denied by the Complainant in his subsequent proof affidavit only proves that the allegation made in the written version in respect of the incident took place at the time of delivery in the Complainant house is true.  Though the Complainant alleged that there are damages in some of the delivered articles, there is no proof filed by the Complainant to accept the damage in the articles. The Opposite Parties contended  that the entire articles were delivered. In view of the forgoing circumstances that we hold that the entire articles booked by the Complainant at Pune have been delivered to the Complainant at Chennai and therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service.

8. POINT:2

          Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in the Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.     

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 10^th   day of May 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 24.01.2012                   Lorry Receipt bearing No.529 issued by the 1^st

                                                 Opposite Party

 

Ex.A2 dated 24.01.2012                   Lorry Receipt bearing No.530 issued by the 1^st

                                                   Opposite Party

 

Ex.A3 dated 24.01.2012                   Cash Receipt issued by the 1^st Opposite Party

 

Ex.A4 dated 06.02.2012                   ATM withdrawal/ Transfer Slip

 

Ex.A5 dated 20.03.2012                   Lawyer’s Notice sent to the Opposite Parties with

                                                   postal acknowledgement card

 

Ex.A6 dated NIL                     Returned cover of Lawyer’s Notice (sent to pune

                                                   office of Opposite Parties)  

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

Ex.B1 dated 07.02.2012                   Letter from Boopathy to the 1^st Opposite Party

Ex.B2 dated 09.02.2012                   Letter from Opposite Party to Complainant

Ex.B3 dated 09.02.2012                   Currier Receipt

 

.

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT