Date of Filing:06/07/2021 Date of Order:24/02/2022 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated:24th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Retd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M., B.A., LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.311/2021 COMPLAINANT: | | SRI ANIRUDDHA CHAKRABORTY S/o Aloke Chakraborty, Aged about 39 years R/at KC 10, Quartz 2:203, Chikkadunnasandra, Yamare Anekal Taluk, Sarjapura Main Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka Pin Code: 562 125. (Complainant: In person) | |
Vs OPPOSITE PARTY: | | GATI LTD.,/GATI KINTETSU EXPRESS PVT. LTD. (GATI –KWE), Having its office at No.5C, first Floor, Peenya 1st Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru 560 058, Karnataka- India Telephone-08049034221 Fax +91 080-23725119 Also at: Corporate and registered office at: 1st Floor, Plot No.20, Survey No.12, Kothaguda, Kondapur, Hyderabad -500 084, Tel: 040-71204284, 27844284 Email: customer | |
|
ORDER
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for the deficiency of service in transporting his motorbike to the destination and damaging the said motor bike during transportation and for Rs.13,000/- as damages, Rs.4,998/- towards the transportation charges, Rs.6,000/- towards repair charges of the two wheeler along with interest at 9.5% per annum and for cost and other reliefs as the commission deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are: that the Royal Enfield Bullet 350 CC motor bike belong to his father bearing Reg. No.WNM-6872 was given to him for use under authorization letter. The same was in Kolkatta which was to be transported to Bangalore. He entrusted the transportation of the said motor bike fully covered/packed to the OP on 30.06.2019. OP agreed to deliver the same to the destination address of the complainant on 06.07.2019. At 7.30 pm on that day, the same was brought to his house at Bangalore in a mini truck. The driver cum delivery boy of the truck single handedly dropped the motor bike to the ground from height of 3.5 feet and he was in a hurry to go back and refused to give the open delivery. Afterwards when he examined the motor bike, he found that, there was damage to the motor cycle to his frame, exhaust pipe, exhaust collar, silence muffler, tile lamp and further the package was torn and removed and the two wheeler could not be moved as the wheel was brushing the mudguard and front left fork cylinder broken, missing large section exposing and there was bend fork rod with suspension oil completely drained out. The same was informed to the OP on next day and further correspondences were also made with the customer care of OP who just informed that they are not giving to pay any monetary compensation as the consignment was booked under Shipper’s Risk Liability and the complainant can avail the insurance claim. The act of OP in handling the consignment was of negligence and carelessness which caused him financial loss, mental agony and physical hardship (strain). Hence the complaint.
3. Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the counsel but failed to file the version within the prescribed time.
4. In order to prove the case, complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-
- Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
5. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT NO 1: In the Affirmative
POINT NO 2 : Partly in the affirmative
For the following.
REASONS
POINT NO 1:
6. Upon perusing the complaint, affidavit evidence, documentary evidence, it becomes clear that as per Ex P1 the complainant handed to OP, the motor bike to be transported from Kolkatta to Bangalore. The same was handed over on 30.06.2019 and received on 07.06.2019 at 7.30 pm unpacked and did not check the condition. Ex P2 is the insurance certificate in respect of the said vehicle. It is only a 3rd party liability and not a own damage. It is also the case of the complainant that they have paid Rs.2,000/- from packing the motor bike for transportation. Ex P4 is the various email correspondence wherein it becomes clear that OP has refused to pay the compensation for the damage. Ex P5 is the various photos to show the damages caused to the motor bike wherein in one particular photo the right fork has completely been cut with the wheel portion and we can see many damages and scratches and pealing of the paint from the said photograph.
7. As per Ex P6 which is a joint inspection report carried out by the complainant as well as authorized signatory of the OP, it is mentioned that:-
“JOINT INSPECTION REPORT
SL.NO. DOCKET NO. 478584349 DOCKET DATE 30.06.19
OBN NO. OBN DATE |
Said to Contains: 2 wheeler Bullet 350 Cargo value : 60,000 |
Nature of Loss: Broken Front Suspension/Fork Assembly, Broken exhaust Pipe, Scratches on Mudguard to Oil Tank, Broken Indicator (L) 5 parts of left Fork/Suspension, Indicator Light 1, Exhaust Pipe 1 (Total 7 excluding pain work) |
Short/Damage Count: |
Loss Valued: 8,000 – 9,000 |
Summary: The 2 Wheeler Which is a Royal Enfield Bullet 350CC was delivered with broken Front Suspension assembly primarily on the left side, Broken exhaust pipe due to bending and Broken left side rear Indicator due to bad cargo handling. The delivery person Parameshwara had unloaded the bike in front of me with the help of 2 apartment securing guard by directly dropping the wheels from a height at 3.5 ft of his vehicles without using a plank o2 support to slide if to the ground. |
Loss Assessed Rs. |
Sd/- Authorised Signatory Consignee seal and Sign Gati Limited” |
|
8. Complainant has produced Ex P8 and P9 wherein the damages caused to the vehicle is Rs.9,000/- and the claim is made for that amount for which OP has not objected to the complainant to made claim from any authorities. Ex.P10 is the copy of the notice issued. When all these facts and circumstances are taken into consideration, it becomes clear that complainant entrusted the transportation to the bike to OP at Kolkatta to be transported to Bangalore and to be handed to the residential address of the complainant which though OP carried out is not without any negligence. Upon perusing the photos and the joint inspection report, it becomes clear that the vehicle got damaged and same was assessed for Rs.9,000/-. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and deficiency in service is on the part OP in not taking due diligence and care caution while transporting the motor bike. It also becomes clear that due to the said negligence, the said motor bike got damaged and left fork got damaged and in fact it is broken. In view of the same, we are of the opinion that complainant is entitle for repair charges of Rs.9,000/- and packing charge of Rs.2,000/- and further Rs.5,000/- towards damages for suffering inconvenience, mental agony and hardship and further Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses and In view of this, we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is partly allowed with cost.
- OP i.e Gati Ltd./Gati Kintetsu Express Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Authorised Signatory is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,000/- towards repair charges and also to pay Rs.2,000/- towards packing charges to the complainant.
- Further OP to pay Rs.5,000/- towards damages and Rs.5,000/- towards the litigation expenses to the complainant.
- OP is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 24th day of February 2022)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
- Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | Sri Aniruddha Chakraborty – Complainant |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Copy the lorry receipt for having booked complainants vehicle with OP.
Ex P2: Copy of the Insurance certificate
Ex P3: Copy of the receipt for having paid Rs.2,000/-
Ex P4: Copy of the email correspondences.
Ex P5: Photographs
Ex P6: Copy of the joint Inspection Report.
Ex P7: Copy of the claim letter.
Ex P8: Copy of the No objection certificate
Ex P9: Copy of the observation note.
Ex P10: Copy of the letter written by OP.
Ex P11: Copy of the letter issued by complainant’s father permitting complainant o use the vehicle.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: -Nil-
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
- Nil -
MEMBER PRESIDENT
RAK*
