Orissa

Cuttak

CC/39/2015

Bishnu Brata Panigrahi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Magaging Director,GATI - Opp.Party(s)

B K Sinha & associates

18 Jul 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

          C.C No.39/2015

 

Bishnu Brata Panigrahi,

S/O:Basudeva Panigrahi,

Permanent Resident of Plot No.1451/B,

Sector-6,C.D.A,Cuttack,

P.S:Markagnagar,Dist:Cuttack,

Presently residing at

B6/302, Tranquility Phase-1,

Shewalwadi,Pune,Maharashtra.                                     ... Complainant.

 

                                   Vrs.

       GATI, Registered Office

Gati Ltd.,1-7-29, M.G.Road,

Secunderabad-500003,Andhra Pradesh,

Represented through its Managing Director.           … Opp. Party.

 

 

Present:  Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                   Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:      27.03.2015

Date of Order:    18.07.2023

 

For the complainant:          Mr. B.K.Sinha,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P                :          Mr. B.Mohanty,Advocate.

 

Sri Sibananda  Mohanty,Member.

             The case of the complainant in short is that he booked with the O.Ps for transportation of his furniture from his permanent residence at Cuttack to his present residential address at Pune.  The said furniture are Godrej centre table, TV table, table assorted, Godrej Wardrobe.  It is alleged by the complainant that the total estimated value of the said goods are of Rs.80,000/-.   It is stated by the complainant that the O.P no.2(deleted) is the agent of O.P and he had paid Rs.3,600/- to the O.P no.2(deleted) on 11.12.2013 for pick up and packing of said goods as well as had paid Rs.4,700/- to the O.P on 19.12.2013 towards the charges of freight and insurance charges for the said goods.    It is alleged by him that the insured value of his goods was of Rs.40,000/-.  It is further alleged by the complainant that O.P delivered the goods to him at a belated date as promised by him and on delivery, it is noticed by him that the table, T.V table and Godrej Centre table were damaged during the transportation.  As such he requested the O.P to appoint a surveyor to assess the loss as he had paid charges towards the insurance by enclosing photographs of the damaged goods. But the O.P did not take any steps in conducting the survey and assessing the loss, so also he has not paid the claim amount to him.  Hence, the complainant has filed this case for direction to the O.P to pay the insured value of the damaged goods amounting to Rs.40,000/- to him alongwith compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as well as any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper.

             The complainant has filed copies of some documents alongwith his complaint petition in order to prove his case.

2.         Out of the two O.Ps., the O.P no.2 has been deleted from the cause title as per the memo filed by the complainant vide order dt.25.5.2022 of this Commission.

             However, the O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version admitting about the hiring of services of consignment of goods of the complainant but stated that he had no knowledge about the materials inside the parcels as the same were received by him in a sealed packet.  It is further stated by him that he is no way liable for any loss/damage to the shipment, if it is caused through the vehicle carrying the goods on National highway with bad conditions of road, which is beyond his control.  It is admitted by the O.P that the vehicle which was carrying the materials, was struck in transit which is beyond his control.  It is alleged by him that the complainant had received all the materials in good and safe condition and the complainant has filed the present case with oblique motive to collect some money from him.  It is stated by him that the complainant may get compensation from the insurance company if he would lodge the claim before the Insurance Company and in that event, he would issue observation note about the damages of goods.  Hence, it is prayed by the O.P that the case is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with cost.  No documents have been filed by the O.P.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.              Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.             Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.            Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

Admittedly, the complainant has hired the services of O.P for transporting his goods.  The O.P has also admitted about the stucking of goods during the transit period.   It reveals from copies of photographs as filed by the complainant that his furnitures are damaged. The allegation of the complainant to the effect that he had paid insurance charges to the O.P. is not disputed by the O.P.  The allegation of the complainant to the effect that the agent of the O.P had packed the goods is not disputed.  Hence, it is not believable that the allegation of the O.P to the effect that he was not aware about which type of goods were there in the packets, which were worth of Rs.80,000/-.  The complainant had requested to the O.P to depute a surveyor to assess the loss sustained to his articles but the O.P did not take any step to that effect rather he has stated that if the complainant would lodge his claim for compensation before the Insurance Company, he would assist him by giving observation note.  The O.P has not disputed as regards to receipt of charges towards insuring the goods of the complainant.  Hence, it is presumed to be true,  the allegation of the complainant that his goods worth of Rs,80,000/- was insured at Rs.40,000/-.  The O.P had not intimated the complainant in which insurance company he had insured the goods.  Hence, it is not within the knowledge of the complainant in which Insurance Company, the O.P had insured his goods.  This act/omission of O.P reveals deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.  Be that as it may, even if it is assumed that goods were not insured in that case, it is the duty of the O.P to deliver the goods in good condition.  In this regard the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Transport Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Dinesh Agarwal reported in 2020(1) /CPR 554(NC) held that it is the sole responsibility of the Carrier to transport the goods/consignment to the designated place in a proper manner and in safe condition.

In view of the above findings and as per the decision as referred above, it is held that the O.P has committed deficiency in service as well as has practised unfair trade.

Issues no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.  The complainant’s goods are worth of Rs.80,000/- were insured for a sum of Rs.40,000/-, Thus, he is entitled to Rs.40,000/-.  Hence, it is so ordered;

                                                             ORDER

Case is allowed on contest against the O.P.  Thus, the O.P is directed to pay the complainant the insured value of the goods i.e.  Rs.40,000/- alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of delivery of the goods i.e., from 19.12.2013 till the amount is quantified.  The O.P is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for his mental agony and harassment alongwith a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards cost of his litigation. This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 18^th day of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                   Member

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

                                                                                          Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                 President