COMPLAINT FILED: 25.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 07th JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2542/2008<br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr. Sri. K.P. Sendil Kumar,<br /> No. 23/11-A, Thiru Vi Ka,<br /> Third Street, <br /> Behind Kesari School,<br /> Mylapore,<br /> Chennai – 600 004.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (K.R. Nagendra <br /> Prasad)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. Times Packers & Movers,<br /> C-104, D.D.U.T.T.L Industrial Suburb, 2nd Stage,<br /> Yeshwanthpur,<br /> Bangalore – 560 022.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (K. Usha Rani)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- and pay the cost of the material lost to the tune of Rs.1,79,700/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant availed the services of the OP for the transportation of his household articles from Bangalore to Chennai. OP agreed to transport the same at the cost of Rs.12,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.9,000/- on the date of entrustment of his household articles on 28.03.2008 the remaining Rs.3,000/- is to be paid at the time of delivery of the goods in tact at Bangalore. OP passed the receipt and issued the consignment note accompanied by inventory list. But thereafter OP delivered only part of the household articles on 29.03.2008 and on 01.04.2008 the remaining articles like serial Nos. 16, 36, 44, 63, 69, 70, 81, 82, 93, 96 and 99 of worth Rs.1,79,700/- were not at all delivered. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant by addressing a letter and even by causing the legal notice, went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP when the said articles were entrusted to them they were covered under the sealed box. The contents of the said boxes were not known to OP nor it is disclosed including that of the cost of the each of the articles packed in the said sealed boxes. OP agreed to transport the said goods at owners risk. Complainant having understood the terms and conditions entrusted the said goods to the OP and OP promptly delivered all the goods to the complainant, complainant received the same without any objection. Under such circumstances the allegations now made in the complaint are all false and far from truth. The so called legal notice alleged to have been issued by the complainant has not reached the OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence they are not liable to pay either compensation or the so called cost of the alleged non-delivered articles. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the services of the OP for the transportation of his house hold articles from Bangalore to Chennai. OP agreed to transport the said goods at a total cost of Rs.12,000/-, complainant made initial payment of Rs.9,000/- on 28.03.2008, it was agreed between the parties that the remaining Rs.3,000/- is to be paid at the time of delivery of the said goods at Bangalore. OP issued the consignment note accompanied with the list of articles entrusted to it. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that OP delivered only part of the house hold articles on 29.03.2008 and on 01.04.2008, but the remaining house hold articles of worth Rs.1,79,700/- namely articles at serial Nos. 16, 36, 44, 63, 69, 70, 81, 82, 93, 96 and 99 in article inventory list are not delivered to him. His repeated requests and demands made by addressing letter on 01.04.2008 and by causing the legal notice on 15.09.2008, went in futile. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service. The copies of the consignment note, inventory list, letter, legal notice are produced.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that they delivered the entire articles entrusted to them and complainant received the said articles without any protest. Complainant has not made any endorsement on the delivery note at the time of receipt of the articles with certain items as noted in his complaint are not delivered or found missing. Complainant has also made payment of remaining Rs.3,000/-. We find substance in the defence of the OP. If the complainant has not received the said articles of worth items referred to above, nothing prevented him to make an endorsement on the delivery note when such an articles are not received by him. But no such steps are taken. Further the article list cum inventory does not disclose the value of the each and every item nor complainant has produced any bills for having purchased the said articles of worth. In absence of such corroborative evidence, what is the basis for the complainant to come to the conclusion that the so called articles which are not delivered to him are worth Rs.1,79,700/- is not known. So in absence of such basic proof the claim of the complainant appears to be imaginary.<br /> <br /> 8. The fact that the articles were packed in carton box being marked as A to Z in 32 boxes is not at dispute. The consignment note clearly discloses OP was entrusted with old and used articles which are packed in sealed carton boxes. Complainant has not made clear in which of the boxes which are the articles he has kept. So basically there is no proof that he kept the missing articles at serial nos. mentioned by him in so called carton box. So again there arises a doubt with regard to the contents of the said carton boxes. So viewed from any angle, the claim of the complainant appears to be baseless. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Under such circumstances the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 07th day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />