COMPLAINT FILED: 27.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> 12th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1435/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt. A. Rekha Reddy,<br /> W/o. A. Sathyanarayana Reddy,<br /> Aged about 40 years,<br /> Residing at 120, 7th Cross,<br /> 3rd Cross, RMV 2nd Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 94.<br /> <br /> Advocate (Suresha)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY 1. VRL Logistics Ltd.,<br /> 17th K.M., Varur,<br /> Bangalore Road,<br /> Hubli – 581 207.<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. VRL Logistics Ltd.,<br /> Kubar Sagha Building,<br /> Gandhi Nagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 009.<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 to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation and damages of Rs.41,461/- 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 brother’s daughter availed the services of the OP in sending rose wood cupboard to the complainant a beneficiary from Hubli. OP accepted the consignment to transport the said rose wood cupboard, thereby collected transportation charges of Rs.1,461/-. Complainant’s relative duly packed the said cupboard and entrusted it to the OP for transportation on 08.05.2008 with a fond hope of that it will reach the complainant within a day or two. OP having accepted the said consignment issued the receipt, but caused delay in delivery of the same. Ultimately on 12.05.2008 complainant received a cotton bag containing some wooden parts of the cupboard. The cupboard which was sent by the complainant’s brother daughter was completely damaged. Hence complainant refused to accept the said goods. Then the driver of the said lorry took it back. Thereafter complainant made several requests and demands to OP to deliver her rose wood cupboard or pay her the compensation. She even got issued the legal notice, again there was no response from the OP. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The cost of the rose wood cupboard is nearly Rs.30,000/-. It is at the negligence and carelessness of the OP complainant suffered the loss. Hence she felt the deficiency in service, under the circumstances she 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 the complainant’s relative has not declared the value of the goods at the time of the booking. The booking was made “at owners risk”. The said packed cupboard was handed over to the OP, OP is not made known whether it is of rose wood or of a jungle wood. Complainant has not produced any document to show that the cost of the said cupboard is more than Rs.30,000/-. It is further contended that complainant has not noted the name of the driver and the lorry number which delivered the said cupboard to her on 12.05.2008 that too in a damaged condition. So in absence of such particulars OP can’t be held liable for the alleged damages. Complainant herself refused to receive the consignment, though OP took the said consignment to her door steps. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The entire 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 the 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 Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<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 brother’s daughter has booked a rose wood cupboard to be transported from Hubli to Bangalore. OP having accepted the said consignment which was given to them in a packed condition, that too in a good condition charged Rs.1,461/- and issued the receipt on 08.05.2008. That receipt is produced. The receipt discloses that wooden cupboard is entrusted. Of course there is no mention that it is a rose wood cupboard and the cost of the cupboard. It is the duty casts upon the OP to seek better particulars from the person who booked the said consignment for transportation to know the quality of wood and the cost of the consignment entrusted to them. OP failed in that regard. Now having caused damages to the said consignment OP cannot take the shelter contending that the description of the wood is not mentioned so also the cost. This kind of defence set out by the OP speaks to their ulterior motive. It is made with a sole intention to shirk their responsibility, that too to save their skin out of sin.<br /> <br /> 7. It has come in the evidence and it is also admitted by the OP that though the said consignment was booked on 08.05.2008 it is alleged to have been delivered to the complainant on 12.05.2008 that is nearly after 4 days, that too some wooden parts were packed in a cotton bag stating that they are spare parts of the said cupboard. The driver of the said lorry tried to deliver the same to the complainant. One thing is made clear that the cupboard is damaged and its spare parts have come out, when that is so, naturally complainant refused to accept the said damaged or broken parts of the cupboard. That cannot be said as a sin. OP strangely contended that the name of the driver and the lorry number, etc., in which the cupboard was taken to the complainant’s house for delivery was not mentioned. When once OP admits the fact of acceptance of the said cupboard for transportation and delivery after collecting the necessary charges, it is for them to verify the lorry number and the driver who transported the said consignment. So again this strange defence of OP speaks to the fact that they want to wash of their hands from their liability. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent, which finds support from the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard her sworn testimony. When her requests, went in futile she even got issued the legal notice on 15.05.2008. Again there was no response. So the hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant, that too for no fault of her. <br /> <br /> 9. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake. Though OP collected all the necessary transportation charges, it failed to discharge its obligation to transport the consignment with all care. There is a breach of promise and there is a proof of deficiency in service. Of course complainant has not produced any document to show that the rose wood cupboard is worth of Rs.30,000/- and odd, when it was purchased is not made clear. So taking all these facts and circumstances into consideration the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay half of the cost of the cupboard claimed by the complainant along with damages and litigation cost. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- the cost of the damaged wooden cupboard and Rs.3,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <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 12th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br />