KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO. 661/2011

JUDGMENT DATED : 20.3.12

PRESENT:

SMT. A. RADHA                                                 :  MEMBER

Bharat Jain,

3D Condor Marigold Apartments,

Vazhuthacaud –DPI Junction Road,

Thiruvananthapuram having current

Address G 133 SFS Flats Sarita Vihar,

New Delhi 110 076.                                            :  APPELLANT

(By Adv. T.L. Sreeram)

Vs

1.      Associated Movers and Packers (P) Ltd.,

          TC 2/1511, Mukkalakkal,

          Kazhakuttom P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

                                                                             :  RESPONDENTS

2.      Associated Movers and Packers (P) Ltd.,

          8-31 F, M.T.P. Road, Vellakinar Pirivu,

          Coimbatore Tamil Nadu 641029.

(By Adv. S. Christudas)

JUDGMENT

SMT. A. RADHA : MEMBER

          The appellant is the complainant who came up for enhancement of the award passed by the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in CC No.178/10.

          2.      The case of the complainant is that the complainant entrusted for packing and shifting of two cars and personal belongings with the opposite parties from Thiruvananthapuram to Gurgaon,  Haryana on an agreed payment of Rs.40,000/-. It was on assurance that the cars and house hold goods will be sent directly from Thiruvananthapuram to Delhi. It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties used sub-standard packing materials and the goods received were in damaged condition and certain goods were missing. The complainant requested the opposite parties to make good the loss. There was no response from the side of the opposite parties. The damage and the theft of articles caused loss amounting to Rs.81,013/- and the complaint is filed claiming compensation and cost by the complainant.

3.      After filing the version the opposite parties adduced no evidence, nor cross examined the complainant and hence the complainant’s case stands uncontraverted. The complainant adduced evidence as PW1 and documents P1 to P10(c) filed. On the basis of evidence and documents, the Forum below allowed the complaint.

4.      The learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the compensation and cost awarded is very low and the appeal is filed for enhancement of the award amount. It is the submission of the counsel that the complainant had to appear in person before the Forum below from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram. The actual expenses including travel expenses came to Rs.37,854/- and further the mental agony is to be compensated appropriately.

5.      The counsel for the respondent represented and resisted the arguments of the appellant.

6.      Heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the documents. The respondents have not filed appeal against the impugned order of the Lower Forum and so the respondents/opposite parties have to confine their arguments to that extent. Further the respondent after filing version remained exparte before the Forum below.

7.      This commission find force in the submission made by the counsel for the appellant that the complainant was present in person to contest before the Forum travelling from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram twice and also produced the documents. The expenses incurred by him were submitted along with a letter dated: 23.4.11 by the complainant/appellant with relevant documents on expenses before the Forum below which was not considered. The complainant’s evidence and documents were already marked on 12.11.10 and was taken for orders on 30.4.2011. No petition is seen filed to accept the additional documents with affidavit filed by the complainant nor re-opened the evidence. So the additional documents were not considered by the Forum below and no infirmity is found in this regard. In the interest of Justice this commission is of the view that the expenses incurred is justifiable on the ground that the complainant himself was present to file the complaint and was present in person for evidence from Delhi to Thiruvananthapuram is itself evident. This was occasioned due to the deficiency in service of the respondents/opposite parties and hence awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards cost in addition to the award of the Forum below.

In the result, appeal is allowed. This commission uphold the order of the Lower Forum and also direct the respondents to pay an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost to the appellant/complainant.

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Lower Forum with the LCR.

A. RADHA           :  MEMBER

Da