Delhi

East Delhi

CC/24/2017

GAUTAM SINHA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AGARWAL PACKERS - Opp.Party(s)

08 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.24/2017  

	Dr. Gautam Sinha R/o 43, Palmgreen Apartments, Plot No. 3A, Sector-11, Dwarka, Delhi.	….Complainant
Versus
1.	M/s Agarwal Packers & Movers, DRS Group, P.No. 454, 2nd Floor, Patparganj Estate, Delhi.	……OP1
2.	DRS Dilip Roadlines Pvt. Ltd.(An Associate of Agarwal Packers & Movers) 3rd Floor, Kabra Complex, 61 M.G. Road, Secunderabad-500003.	……OP2

 

Date of Institution: 13.01.2017

Judgment Reserved on: 01.02.2023

Judgment Passed on: 08.02.2023

                  

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Rashmi Bansal (Member)

 

 

JUDGMENT

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against OPs, for deficiency in services in transportation of his household good from Delhi to Bangalore causing damage to goods and claiming for refund of the amounts paid by him along with compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and litigation cost.

1. It is the case of the complainant that he took OPs service for transporting his household goods from Delhi to Bangalore by Road. OPs after inspection prepared list of articles dated 09.09.2015 to be transported on 04.10.2015 and quoted 87,500/, including packing, loading, transporting and unloading charges, which was agreed by the complainant. The said consignment was also insured for Rs.2,50,000/- by OPs on payment of premium of Rs. 7500/-. In addition to this, the warehouse charges were also agreed by the complainant to be applicable eight days after the goods would reach to Bangalore i.e. with effect from 20.10.2015 @Rs.150 per day and it was further agreed that the final charges for the warehousing would be paid when the goods are delivered and unloaded at the desired address. The expected date of delivery at Bangalore was 12.10.2015.
2. Complainant submits that due to the poor packaging material, work quality and workmanship of the persons engaged by OPs at Delhi to pack the household goods, majority of goods were found damaged on delivery beyond the possibility of repair. The photographs of the articles were taken which clearly reflects great extent of damage caused to the household goods of the complainant. The complainant submits that OPs were deficient in its services in engaging unexperienced packaging staff and used inferior packaging materials and further, the OPs have kept the household goods of the complainant in their godown at Bangalore, which was insect infected as a result of which the goods were more damaged and unnecessarily complainant had to pay storage charges of Rs.22,350/- from 21.10.2015–18.03.2016 though the complainant has never instructed the OPs to keep the goods in go down at Bangalore. It is further alleged that OPs did not handle the goods of the complainant with proper care.  The complainant submits that he has made several attempts with OPs by personal visits as well as through emails asking OPs for refund/compensate him for the damages, which  is accessed for Rs. 52,470/- but OPs did not pay heed to the request of the complainant.

  

3. Complainant further submits that due to misrepresentation on the part of OPs, that they are expert in the field of transportation of households, he has accepted the services of OPs, & he was lured by fictitious and phonetically similar name with original “Agrawal Movers and Packers Ltd.” in the same business, and thus the OPs have adopted unfair and unethical trade practice for which they have to be held guilty as per the provisions of CPA. Complainant submits that he has paid the Rs. 87,500/- to OPs for shipment of his household goods from Delhi to Bangalore, Rs. 22,350/- for the storage of goods at Bangalore, and Rs. 7500/- for the premium for transit insurance and prays for the refund of the above stated entire amount with interest along with Rs. 52,470/- towards damage of the goods of the complainant, Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and for causing harassment and mental agony and Rs. 35,000/- towards the litigation cost.

 

4. The OPs have filed their reply taking objection that complainant is not consumer within the meaning of CPA and the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. The OPs submit that complaint is maliciously filed to harass and malign their reputation of OPs and is abuse of the process of law. While denying deficiency of service, unfair or unethical trade practice, OPs submit that the complainant has not come to court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. This is submitted by OPs that only after due satisfaction and many visits as well as signing of number of papers, the complainant has taken the services of OPs for transportation and that they have not taken undue advantage of the brand image and reputation of ‘Agarwal Movers and Packers Ltd’ as OPs are  in the business since a long time with the same name and style and the invoice of OP1 and OP2 also contain the same details.
5. The OPs further submit that no poor quality of material or workmanship was deployed and the complainant himself has never objected if he has seen the poor quality of packaging material and workmanship. OPs submit that they use the best quality of packaging material as well as the most experienced workmanship to serve its customers. OPs further submits that proper care was taken by them in transporting the goods of the complainant and for almost half year, the same were laying in the warehouse of the OPs in Bangalore and complainant did not take proper steps to take his household items from the warehouse of OPs though he had no reason to keep the goods in warehouse for such a long period. Further, the complainant gave no negative remarks on the POD at the time of receiving his household goods, which shows that the goods of the complainant were in good position at the time of delivery and the photos are forged or fabricated and taken after a second thought to harass and extort money from OPs. The goods of the complainant were kept with proper care and OPs have discharged its duty with diligence.  Denying unfair trade practice, OPs prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 

6. Complainant has filed the rejoinder denying the stand taken by OPs in their reply and reiterated the stand taken in the complaint. Both the parties have filed their respective evidences and related document in support of their arguments.

 

7. The complainant has filed the following documents –
   1. True copy dated 09.09.2015 of packing list of articles prepared by OP Ex. CW1/1;
   2. Copy of the special contract dated 04.10.2016 for transportation from Delhi to Bangalore Ex. CW1/2;
   3. The copy of the consignor bill dated 04.10.2015, Ex. CW1/3;
   4. True copy of the receipt for Rs. 87,500/- issued by OPs, Ex. CW1/4;
   5. True copy of the godown storage receipt for Rs.22,350/-, dated 19.03.2016, Ex. CW1/5;
   6. The documents of the website of Agarwal and movers Ltd’a, Ex. CW1/6;
   7.  True copy of internet download of ‘Agarwal, Packers and movers’Ex.  CW1/7;
   8.  Copy of the photographs of the complainant’s goods damaged, Ex. CW1/8;
   9.  True copy of claim/email dated 12.04.2016 to OP qua details of the damaged goods, Ex. CW1/9;
   10. True copy of calculation details of insurance premium for transit insurance of complainant’s goods (transported from Delhi to Bangalore), Ex. CW1/10;
   11. True copy of various email exchanges between the parties, Ex. CW1/11(colly).

 

8. OPs have filed the consigned bill and receipt of payment of Rs. 87,500/- as Ex. R1 and R2. 

 

9. The Commission has gone through the document filed by both the parties and heard the arguments of the Ld. Counsels of the parties.

 

10. The payment receipts filed by complainant of Rs. 87,500/-  for shipment of household goods from Delhi to Bangalore, of Rs. 22,350/- for the storage of goods at Bangalore and of Rs. 7500/- for the premium for transit insurance are not disputed by OPs. Therefore, complainant is ‘consumer’ under CPA, 1986.
11. The cause of action has arisen on 19.03.2016 when the goods were delivered from godown to complainant’s house, and further on 12.04.2016, when complainant has intimated the OPs about the damages caused to the goods. The present complainant has been filed on 13.01.2017, i.e. within two years from the date of the cause of action has arisen, therefore, is within limitation.

 

12. OPs have not placed on record any document to show that they were diligent in their service and the goods transported from Delhi to Bangalore were delivered in the good condition to the complainant and the warehouse, where the goods were kept was clean and safe for keeping household goods. The proof of the satisfactory delivery of the goods to the complainant is not filed by the OPs. The email conversations placed on record by complainant show that the complainant kept on informing OPs about the damage to his goods and OPs vide its email dated 26.03.2016, has appointed one Mr Kuldeep as the claim in-charge to do the survey for the damaged items and to get it repaired. Further, vide email dated 24.04.2016, the operation department (HO) has asked complainant for sending estimation of the cost for extensive damage to clothes and garments. Another email dated 29.04.2016 of the OPs have mentioned the approximate estimation given by the complainant as Rs. 52,470/- along with the list of damages and approximate estimation and directed the surveyor to do survey once again for furthering the claim proceedings. OPs have not explained as to what action taken by them to resolve the grievances of the complainant despite the appointment of the surveyor and what is the report of the surveyor. The OPs themselves in their e-mail dated 01.06.2016 have mentioned its surveyor act as “not good Kuldeep.” Since OPs also failed to place on record the assessment of their surveyor with respect to the damage caused to the goods,  the assessment submitted by the complainant to the OPs of Rs. 52,470/- is, probable & is accepted as correct and this commission awards the same for the loss suffered by the complainant.
13. Further, the goods were insured through special contract form, Ex. CW1/2, shows that the insurance cover was taken at carriers’ risk for all risks, covers comprehensive and claim will be settled by carrier under regular arrangement and that while no separate receipt/policy from insurance company will be given as claim, if any, will be settled by carrier. The list of valuation of individual articles at the depreciated value was also enclosed. Since, the accessed amount of loss of Rs. 52,740/- , as calculated by the complainant, is awarded to him, no separate insurance amount be given to the complainant.

 

14. So far as the warehouse charges are concerned, since complainant himself had agreed vide his email dated 28.09.2015 for the warehouse charges with effect from 20.10.2015 he cannot later on deny for the charges for the same.  The godown storage receipt for the payment of Rs. 22,350/-, Ex. CW1/5, shows that the storage period is from 21.10.2015 to 18.03.2016, which  is  as per the agreement between the parties, therefore, the said charges cannot be given to the complainant. The complainant allegation towards the bad condition of the warehouse is not supported by any evidence, hence is not tenable. There is also no terms and conditions with respect to the keeping goods at warehouse except the storage charges. Further, no evidence placed on record by complainant that OPs have misrepresented themselves as ‘Agrawal Movers and Packers ltd.’. This is complainant duty to find every detail before availing services from OPs.  The legal maxim ‘Caveat Emptor’ i.e. ‘Buyer Beware’ casts a duty upon customer to buy at their own risk.

 

15. Considering all above facts and the grievances of the complainant, this commission is of the considerate view that OPs failed to provide due care and caution in spite of the agreed payment by the complainant, which  itself is deficiency in service and hence the complainant is entitled for compensation. Therefore, we direct OPs, jointly and severally, to pay Rs. 25,000/- as a compensation for mental agony, harassment etc which  shall include the cost of litigation and Rs. 52,470/- for the loss suffered by the complainant with interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 13.01.2017 till the date of actual realisation by the complainant.

 

16. The above said order be complied with by OPs within one month from the date of receiving the order, failing which the entire amount shall carry an interest @9% p.a. till the actual realization by the complainant.   

 

17. The file be consigned to record room after uploading the order on website.
18. The copy of the order shall be given to the parties in terms of the rules of CPA, 1986.
19.  The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of the complaint cases.
20. The order contains 08 pages each bears our signature