Date of filing: 11.01.2021 Date of Disposal: 29.04.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.31/2021
PRESENT:
SRI.RAJU K.S,
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER
Shri Mallanagouda Linganagouda
Patil, S/o. Linganagouda,
Resident of Jambaladini Village,
Hungunda Taluk, Bagalkot
District-587154. Rep. by his
power of Attorney Holder,
Shri Sharanabasnagoud.M Patil.
(Rep by Sri. R.S.Prasanna Kumar, Advocate)
1) M/s. VRL Logistics Limited,
Corporate Office Giriraj Annexe,
Circuit House Road, Hubballi-580209.
Rep. by its Managing Director,
Mr. Aniruddha Phadnavis.
2) M/s. VRL Logistics Limited,
Bangalore Branch Office,
“Sri Sai Ram Towers”, No.24,
-
Chamarajpet, Bangalore-560018.
Represented by its Managing Director.
(OP NO.1 & 2 are rep. by Sri. Aravind
M.Neglur, Advocate)
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT
01. The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.9,600/- and such other relief as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
02. It is not in dispute that, the complainant has got transported lamination sheets from Bangalore to his residence at Hunagunda Taluk, Bagalkot District, worth of Rs.9,600/-. Further it is not in dispute that, Opposite party No.1 is the logistic office in Hubli and Opposite party No.2 is the logistic office in Bangalore.
03. It is the further case of the complainant that, he has booked M/s. VRL Logistics for shifting of lamination sheets from Bangalore to Ilakal. Further when the complainant’s father visited VRL office in Ilakal he found damaged lamination sheets. Further the complainant has approached the local jurisdictional police station and got acknowledgement in petition No. 77/1430/2020, dated: 18.03.2020. Since the material has not been properly transported as given in the order, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the present complaint came to be filed.
04. It is the further case of the opposite party that, the complainant had handed over the material safely to the opposite party No.2 in Bangalore office and booked logistics on 17.03.2020 by paying consignment charges of Rs.170/-. Even though the opposite party refused to accept the material for transportation due to vulnerability of transit damage, since the complainant insisted, opposite party had accepted the materials for transportation. Further the transportation was at the risk of the complainant. Further the vulnerability of the goods with regard to damage is depended on the type of goods and the package done by M/s. Decoreum. Hence, M/s. Decoream had taken the risk and it has to compensate the complainant. Hence, sought to dismiss the complaint.
05. To prove the case, the power of attorney holder of the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P.1 to EX.P.8 documents.
06. Counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments.
07. 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 ?
08. 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
09. POINT NO.1:- The complainant (PW.1) has reiterated the fact stated in the pleading, in the affidavit filed in the form of his evidence in chief.
10. The complainant has produced EX.P.4 consigners copy issued by VRL Logistics Limited for having booked for transportation of the lamination sheets from Bangalore to Hungunda Taluk, Bagalkot District. On perusal of EX.P.4 it appears that, on 17.03.2020 the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.170/- towards transportation charges. Further EX.P.3 is the tax invoice for having purchased the lamination sheets on 17.03.2020 worth of Rs.9,600/- by the complainant. EX.P.1 is the power of attorney. According to PW.1 he has handed-over the material safely to opposite party No.2 in Bangalore office and had paid consignment charges of Rs.170/-.
11. Further the evidence was given by the son of the complainant. According to him, when his father visited the Ilakal VRL office to receive the material, he was asked to see that, the material was damaged, hence he had lodged a complaint. EX.P.5 is the copy of the acknowledgment issued by the police for having received the complaint. Opposite party did not dispute the documents produced by the complainant and his evidence filed in the form of evidence in chief. It is the duty of the carrier to safely convey the material to the consignee. Hence there was negligence on the part of the carrier. Since the complainant has prima facie to prove the transport of the material and damage to the same the onus is on the opposite party to disprove the same. Opposite party failed to discharge onus casted on him.
12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, it is the burden on the opposite party to disprove the case of the complainant. In support of the contention counsel relies the judgment reported in (2000) 5 SCC 74, between Economic Transport Organization Vs Dharwad District Khadi Gramudyog Sangh, decided on 31.03.2000. In the said judgment it is held that, after the discharge of initial onus by the complainant the onus to prove the absence of negligence shifts on the opposite party. Even in-spite of notice been received sent by the complainant vide EX.P.6 opposite party instead of paying the compensation gave an untenable reply vide EX.P.7. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly we answer this point in affirmative.
13. POINT NO.2:- The complainant claimed to pay damages of Rs.9,600/- towards cost of the material and to pay the amount of Rs.170/- towards transportation charges. In the reply vide EX.P.7 given by the opposite party it is stated that, to have a cordial business relationship the opposite party is ready to settle the claims to an extent of 10 time of the actual price paid in accordance with the provisions of Carriage by Road Act and rules therein. Further since the freight paid was Rs.150/- the opposite party is ready to settle the claim for Rs.1500/-.
14. According to PW.1 the lamination sheets were completely damaged and the cost of the material was Rs.9,600/-. No doubt he has produced invoice to that effect vide EX.P.3. According to PW.1 all material got damaged and it was of no use and the complainant did not get inspected the lamination sheets through an independent person to ascertain with regard to the damage caused to the lamination sheets. We feel the mere saying of the complainant itself is not sufficient to hold that, all the sheets were completely damaged and it cannot be used at all. Hence we feel overall the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the materials. Further since the materials been transported the complainant is not entitled for the freight charges paid.
15. The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony. Admittedly the complainant has suffered a lot because of the damage caused to the materials. Hence the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony. Further the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards delay in getting the work done. It is not explained as to what was the work done by the opposite party. However we feel the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. Accordingly we answer this Point partly in affirmative.
16. 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 parties are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards damages caused to the material, mental agony sustained and cost of the litigation.
The opposite parties shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite parties fail to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.12,000/- 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 him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 29th Day of April, 2023)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainant side:
Sri. Sharanabasanagouda Patil, Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.
Documents submitted by the complainant side:
- Notarized copy of GPA dt.09.09.2020 – Ex.P.1.
- Certificate U/s 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act – Ex.P.2
- Copy of tax invoice dt.17.03.2020 – EX.P.3
- Original copy of consignment receipt dt.17.03.2021 – EX.P.4
- Certified copy of police acknowledgment dt.18.03.2020 – EX.P.5.
- Office copy of legal notice dt.15.09.2020 – EX.P.6.
- Copy of reply dt.22.10.2020 – EX.P.7.
- CD regarding loading process – EX.P.8.
Witness examined for the opposite parties side:
- NIL _
Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:
- NIL -
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
