Date of Filing:    12.10.2017                                                           Date of Disposal: 28.03.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,      BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 28^th DAY OF MARCH, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.2769/2017

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Mr. Bijoy Kumar Mishra,

Aged About 42 Years,

S/o. Promod Kumar Mishra,

R/at: D502, Ittina Mahavir

Apartment, Electronics City

Ph-1, Bangalore-560 100.

(Rep by Sri.Shweta Naik, Advocate)

1) Mr.Rajesh Chaturvedi, Manager,

Agarwal Packers and Movers

Gangesh Nagar, Kolathur,

Nearby SRM Grand Hotel,

(Rep by Sri.Gajendra.S, Advocate)

2) Mr.Manish Jain, Manager,

Agarwal Packers and Movers,

No.296, 3^rd Floor, S.V.Tower,

Above Adigas Hotel, Wilson Garden,

(Rep by Sri.Gajendra.S, Advocate)

3) Mr.Kuldeep Singh/Mr. Mukesh Singh,

(Bangalore claims Department)

Agarwal Packers and Movers,

No.296, 3^rd Floor, S.V.Tower,

Above Adigas Hotel, Wilson Garden,

(Rep by Sri.Gajendra.S, Advocate)

4) The Manager (Claims Department)

An Association of DRS Logistics Private

Limited, No.220, 61 M.G. Road,

Kabra Complex, Secunderabad,

(Complaint against OP-4 is Dismissed

as per order dt.15.05.2019)

5) Sri. Arun Babu,

An Association of DRS Logistics Private

Limited, Agarwal Packers & Movers

DRS Group.

(Complaint against OP-5 is Dismissed

as per order dt.15.05.2019)

6) Agarwal Packers & Movers,

Corp Off: 3^rd Floor, Kabra Complex,

61-M.G.Road, Secunderabad-500 003.

(Notice service – Remained Absent)

7) DRS Logistics Private Limited,

DRS Dilip Road Lines Private Limited,

Corp Off: 3^rd Floor, Kabra Complex,

610M.G.Road, Secunderabad-500 003.

(Notice service – Remained Absent)

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

01.    The complainant has filed this complaint under Section-11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,58,000/-with interest at the rate of 21% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization.

02.    The complaint against opposite party No.4 & 5 came to be dismissed by the order of this Commission on 15.05.2019 for non-taking of proper steps.

03.    During the pendency of the complaint opposite party No.6 & 7 came to be impleaded at the instance of complainant and certain amendments been made to the complaint.

04.    It is not in dispute that, opposite party No.1 is the transporter of goods carrier and movers.  Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant booked the goods on 22.12.2015 under GC No.4467145 and the total number of packages was 61 which are house hold goods and opposite party No.1 has given instruction to service provider to transport all the goods from Chennai storage to the complainant’s new Bangalore address and initially he had paid a sum of Rs.23,919/- through cheque and insurance coverage of 3% of the goods and the said amount was paid by the wife of the complainant.  Further it is not in dispute that, the opposite parties have delivered the goods to the addressee house.  Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant had sent legal notice to the opposite parties.

05.    It is the further case of the complainant that, opposite party No.2 to 5 are the insurer have undertaken to compensate the damages to the extent of claim of Rs.1,00,000/- arising out of damages if any during the storage period and transit till delivery as is where is conditions handling over to the said unit and accordingly the insurance has been availed.  Further the service provider had promised that, it would keep all the listed goods in a safe place with a paper or plastic cover wrap on their risk for the period of 03 to 01 year and later on transporting of all goods to the new location which was at Bangalore.  Further the complainant opted delivery of the goods and surprised while opening the packages to see the poor transport service and most of the valuable goods were damaged and broken and some goods were damaged by water logging which was due to storage in a bad place and also found missing of few boxes and tampering of storage boxes lock and computer parts were stolen from CPU.  Further on contact the Claims Department suggested that, the complainant has to repair the damage item and opposite party No.1 will provide the repaired cost as part of the insurance coverage and the cost of the valuable goods and the repair comes around Rs.12,000/- for getting of the Fridge m Ac outdoor unit, Aqua Guard, Washing Machine, etc.,.  It was found that, within a month the repaired goods were not in working condition due to damage while shifting and thereafter the complainant had brought the new washing machine, fridge, etc., by spending huge amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Further the opposite party on one or the other pretext did not attend the repair work or pay the amount towards damages and all efforts of the complainant went in vain.

06.    It is further contended that, opposite party No.7 had issued a cheque dated: 16.09.2017 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Andhra Pradesh for a sum of Rs.4,200/- and the said cheque was sent to a wrong address and the complainant has received the said cheque after due date of the said cheque.  Further the complainant got issued the legal notice to the opposite party to pay the damages.  In spite of notice been served, opposite party did not reply.  Hence the complaint came to be filed.

07.    It is the further case of the opposite party No.1 that, the surveyor of the opposite party has verified the goods and declared that the delivered goods were in a good condition.  Hence, sought to dismiss the complaint.

08.    To prove the case, the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P.1 to P.20 documents.  

09.    The counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments.

10.     The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-

  (1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

  (2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the 

    relief sought ?

       (3) What order ?

11.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

Point No.1 :  In affirmative

Point No.2 :  Partly in affirmative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

REASONS

12.    POINT NO.1:- The complainant (PW1) has reiterated the fact stated in his complaint, in the affidavit filed in the form of his evidence in chief.  There is no dispute with regard to the transport of the house hold goods from Chennai to Bangalore for the complainant.  Further it is also not in dispute that, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.23,919/- through ICICI Bank for storage and transporting hire.  Further 62 items of packages were there for transport.  It is the contention of the PW.1 that, to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- damage was caused to the goods.  According to PW.1 he has received cheque for a sum of Rs.4,200/- towards damage caused and the same was received after six months of the date of the cheque.  EX.P.8 is the cheque for Rs.4,200/- dated: 16.09.2017.  According to PW.1 TV, Almirah and other house hold goods were damaged.  The complainant has produced EX.P.1 to P.6 way bills pertains to the goods to be transported.  In the email sent by opposite party dated: 04.01.2017 it is stated that, complainant has already obtained insurance for Rs.1,00,000/- with regard to the damage to be caused to the house hold goods.  The complainant has produced the photographs vide EX.P.13 to P.20.  The opposite party did not enter the witness box to prove the defence taken and to revert the evidence of the complainant.  The opposite party did not produce any documents to show that, the goods were safe at the time of delivery.  The opposite party has issued a cheque for Rs.4,200/- after the problem been begun with regard to the transport of the goods.  Hence there is an admission of guilt from the side of the opposite parties.  Therefore there is deficiency of service in not delivering the goods in safe condition.  Accordingly we answer this point in affirmative.

13.    POINT NO.2:-     The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.1,58,000/- towards damages caused to the house hold goods.  The complainant did not produce any documents to say the extent of damage caused in terms of money.  No doubt the photographs produced indicates about the damage caused to the house hold goods.  The opposite party did not produce any materials to prove that, at the time of delivery the house hold goods were intact.  It cannot be said that, the photographs produced by the complainant indicates the damage was not caused at the time of transportation.  Since either of the parties did not produce documents to evaluate the damage in terms of money, we feel the complainant is not entitle for the said sum of Rs.1,58,000/- as claimed.  We feel the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.50,000/-.  Further the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite party and the opposite party made the complainant to approach this Commission.  Hence towards agony the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.  Hence we answer this Point partly in affirmative.

14.    POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party No.1 to 7 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards damages with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e., on 12.10.2017 till realization and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

The opposite party No.1 to 7 shall comply the order within 30 days.   In case, they fail to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.20,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 28^th Day of March, 2023)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainants side:

Sri. Bijoy Kumar Mishra, the complainant (PW-1) has filed his affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Original Copy of Agarwal packers and movers, shifting expert details – EX.P.1.
2. Copy of article list dt.16.12.2015 – EX.P.2.
3. Payment receipt bearing No.4406441 – EX.P.3.
4. Special contract form – EX.P.4.
5. Copy of consignment bill, dt.22.12.2015 – EX.P.5.
6. Copy of checking list dt.22.12.2015 – EX.P.6.
7. Payment detailed statement (ICICI Bank) – EX.P.7
8. Original cheque bearing No.146916, dt.16.09.2017 for Rs.4,200/- - EX.P.8.
9. Copy of legal notice dt.10.07.2017 – EX.P.9.
10. Certificate u/s 65(B) of Evidence Act – EX.P.10.
11. Copy of WhatsApp messages – EX.P.11.
12. Copy of email – EX.P.12.
13. Eight photos – EX.P.13 to P.20.

Witness examined for the opposite party side: 

• NIL - 

Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:

• NIL -

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•