State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Soumitra Kulkarni vs 1.M/S. Drs Dilip Roadlines Pvt. Ltd., on 22 February, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION :: HYDERABAD.
CC.NO. 39 OF 2019
Between:
Mr.Soumitra Kulkarni,
S/o Mr. R.P.Kulkarni,
Age : 29 years,
Occ.: Lieutenant Commander, Indian Navy,
R/o No.18, Himadri, Navy Officers Residential Area (NOFRA),
Colaba, Near R.C. Church,
Mumbai 400 005,
Maharashtra. ....Complainant
And:
1.M/s DRS Dilip Roadlines Pvt., Ltd., Having its Registered office at :
306, 3rd Floor, Kabra Complex, 61, M.G.Road, Secunderabad, Telangana 500 003, India, Represented by its Managing Director.
2. M/s Agarwal Packets and Movers, Having its Corporate Office at :
306, 3rd Floor, Kabra Complex, 61, M.G.Road, Secunderabad, Telangana 500 003, India, Represented by its Managing Director.
....Opposite Parties Counsel for the Complainant : M/s Ranjan Matthew, Advocates. Counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 : Sri G.Ravi Chandran, Advocate.
QUORUM: HON'BLE, SRI V.V.SESHUBABU MEMBER - (J) & HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER - (NJ) WEDNESDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ******* 2 (Per Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member-Non-Judicial) Order :
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17 (1) (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties:
a. To pay a sum total of Rs.22,83,139/- (Rupees twenty two lakh eighty three thousand one hundred and thirty nine only);
b. Cost of litigation; c. Further any other relief or releifs this Commission may deem fit and proper.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Briefly stated facts of the case are that The complainant being a serving officer in the Indian Navy and presently holds the rank of Lieutenant Commander was transferred from Kochi to Mumbai on permanent duty to the Indian Naval ship named "Kolkata" at Mumbai with effect from 6th of May 2018 due to which with an intention to move all his household goods and also the vehicle he has approached the opposite party No.2 which is a brand of Opposite Party No.1. And as the opposite parties have registered themselves as the empanelled transporters this complainant though there were other services available had preferred op's services to transfer his goods which also includes his car "Toyota Corolla" bearing Registration No. MH 02 NA 7913. And one of the employee of the Opposite Parties office, Mr Jasvir Sangwan on 17th April 2018 visited the House of complainant to 3 survey the items to be transferred and provided a quotation dated 17th April 2018 bearing Sl.No.4424483. The complainant was assured of top quality moving services for household and personal goods and items as well as his Toyota Corolla Car by the opposite party and the opposite party also assured the complainant that his car would not be driven from the origin to the destination, but would be transported by a truck which is called "CHAPP VAN" namely Car Household, Artifacts, Plants, Pets Van, the same is also displayed on their website and also on the brochures which clearly emphasizes it that there will be diligence and due care taken in transporting the goods, the opposite party is also a Limca Book of Records holder and the same is reflected on there receipts also and the opposite party also promised to provide absolute best quality services with regard to packing, moving and relocation throughout the country.
Due to such assurance given by the opposite party the complainant booked a consignment for his goods and also for his car and the opposite party issued a invoice bearing No. 4553926 dated 6th may 2018 where in the opposite party had clearly made a note of vehicle make, model, odometer reading, battery details, accessories details, transport charges, car registration, insurance details, loading point, destination point etc. And for the said services the complainant had paid Rs 15,000 by way of NIFT on 1st May 2018 and the complainant was assured that the vehicle would reach to the consignee address i.e. Mumbai within seven days that 4 is on or before 14th May, but to his utter shock on 8th May 2018 at about 11 hours when he was on duty he received a call from Sub Inspector Mr.Satish P.S. Bharamsagar, Chitradurga District, Karnataka, informing that his vehicle has met with an accident which was involved in drunk and drive case and was asked to come immediately to the location to complete the formalities required involving the accident victims.
At that time, as the complainant was sailing on board Indian Naval Ship, bearing name "Kolkata", the complainant asked the Sub Inspector to send the details of the accident, who in response had sent the photographs and the video recorded by them wherein the driver had clearly admitted having consumed the alcohol and driven the car for a substantial distance, due to this negligent act of opposite party the complainant was repeatedly receiving phone calls from Karnataka Police and also from one of the employee of opposite party as such he could not perform his duties properly and subsequently the opposite party and Police together have transferred the vehicle to the nearby Toyota workshop in Mumbai and the workshop has sent a detailed bill for repairs to the tune of Rs.6,23,079/-on 9th July 2018 and also sought for a parking charges of Rs.350 per day from 7th July to 26th July 2018 totalling to a sum of Rs.11,799/-. And the car has been damaged in such a way that any amount of repairs would not make it road worthy, almost all mechanical parts were damaged beyond repair and that the battery has been removed and the same is missing. And due to all such deficient acts of opposite party, the complainant and his 5 wife are compelled to travel in taxi services by incurring huge expenditure as such this complainant was compelled to issue a Legal Notice to the opposite party on 27.07.2018 to which the opposite party had replied pm 14.08.2018. That apart, there are two M.V.cases vide No. MVC 936 of 2018 & MVC 893 of 2018 filed before Dist. Judge, Chitradurga, Karnataka, claiming an exorbitant amount of Rs.1,20,00,000/- (Rupees one crore and twenty lakh only) due to which the complainant is compelled to incur expenditure by hiring an Advocate and defending himself and also incurring expenditure attending the Court. Due to the deficient acts of the opposite parties, he is put to severe hardship and mental agony. As such having no other alternative, the complainant is before this Commission, seeking damages, compensation and costs.
3. The Written Version of the Opposite Party No.1 & the same is adopted by Opposite Party No.2:-
The Opposite Parties filed their written version while admitting that the complainant had booked to transport his car from Kochi to Mumbai and pleaded that the Car was supposed to be transferred in a container, as per the norms, but, however, as the opposite parties have made it clear that it would get delayed to transport the car by container, as, a container would be engaged only when 3-4 cars are to be transported, for the sake of one car, container could not be engaged, when this reason for delay was informed to the complainant, he requested the opposite parties to 6 send the same by engaging a driver, so that the car would reach the destination within time. Upon, such request, the opposite parties hired a well experienced driver, who had experience in long distance driving and also a valid Driving License and sent the car of the complainant.
The opposite parties while admitting the accident had pleaded that it was not due to rash and negligent driving and also denied that the driver was inebriated condition and that none of the Police documents reveals that driver was in intoxicated condition. The opposite parties further pleaded that immediately after coming to know about the accident, the Kochi Office of the opposite parties, has swung into action and took pains to get the car released from the Police Station and also had incurred expenditure with RTA and the Court. The Opposite party camped at Kochi for about 10 days for getting the car released from Police, due to which these opposite parties have incurred huge expenditure. The opposite parties further pleads that in the M.V.OPs filed, the complainant need not personally travel, but he can engage an Advocate for the same and that apart, the vehicle is insured with the General Insurance Company and the policy was in subsistence when the accident took place. The complainant can as well make a claim before the Insurance Company and claim damages, immediately after the accident the complainant should have informed the Insurance Company, so that the Insurance Company would appoint a Surveyor and get the damages assessed and based on the assessment would also pay the insurance claim, the 7 insurance also includes third party damages, hence, the complainant need not bother to pay the compensation in M.V.OPs, the same is covered in the Insurance Policy. That apart, the vehicle of the complainant is of the year 2004 and lifetime of the car was nearing end, as such, the amounts claimed for the car are too huge. Without making the claim before Insurance Company, the complainant has filed this complaint by exaggerating the claim. The opposite parties further expressed lack of knowledge with regard to the credential of the complainant and also whether the complainant was transferred from Kochi to Mumbai and that there was no deficiency on their part and prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
4. The complainant has filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A21 and on behalf of the Opposite parties, Sri A.K.Agarwal, Director of DRS, Dilip Roadlines Pvt., Ltd., filed the evidence affidavit. Complainant filed Memo of citations.
Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. The Points for consideration are:
1. Whether this Commission has Territorial Jurisdiction?
2. Whether the Opposite Parties were negligent/deficient in their services?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought in the complaint?
4. If yes, to what extent?8
6. Point No.1: The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that he being a Naval Officer was transferred from Kochi to Mumbai and he intended to transport his household articles and also his car for this reason he approached the Opposite Party No.2 office for transporting his goods from Kochi to Mumbai as the office has been empanelled with the Navy for the transportation services. After paying the requisite fee he booked a consignment with the Opposite Party who assured him that due care and diligence would be taken in transporting the vehicle and also promised that the vehicle would not be driven to the destination point but would be transported in a truck called "CHAPP VAN" and also promised that the car would reach the consignee address within seven days, but to his utter shock he received a phone call from Sub Inspector, Chitradurga, Karnataka District, stating that his car met with an accident and subsequently the Police and the employee of the opposite party had managed to send the car to a nearby Toyota Workshop after which the said Toyota workshop have sent him a bill of Rs.6,79,000/- and this act of opposite party by not transferring the vehicle in a truck and transporting it by road driven by an inexperienced driver has not only caused monetary loss but also has put him in several cases filed by the victims, all these acts of opposite parties have not only disturbed his work but also, has caused severe inconvenience hardship and mental agony, hence, the present complainant seeking the cost of the car along with compensation and costs and in support of his case the complainant got marked Ex.A1 to A21.
9At the time of hearing the case, this Commission raised a doubt with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission, since, neither the place of booking of consignment nor the destination and not even the place where accident took place is within the territorial jurisdiction. To which the complainant counsel had convinced this Commission that as the Head Office of both the opposite parties is situated in Secunderabad and which falls within the jurisdiction of this Commission, and that apart, at Clause No.12 of Ex.A1 there is a specific mention that any disputes that shall arise would specifically fall under the jurisdiction of Secunderabad. A perusal of the clause substantiates the same as such we conclude that this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
7. Point No.2 :
Now coming to the merits of the case, the booking of the consignment by complainant and also that the car met with an accident is not in dispute.
The only grounds on which the opposite party resisted the complaint is that (1) The complainant expressed his urgency to transport the car and requested the opposite party to transport the car driven by road, as the opposite party had informed that it would take time to transport the car in container, since a container can be engaged when there are 3-4 vehicles to be transported and for the single car of the complainant a container cannot be engaged.10
Except the above said statement the opposite parties have not filed any documents to show that any such request was made by the complainant in the absence of any substantial evidence the contention of the opposite parties cannot be considered.
On the other hand, the complainant had filed Ex.A1 to A3, the quotation and inventory wherein it is made clear that the car will be driven only till the loading point i.e. till the container and subsequently, from unloading point to destination. Having made such promise that the car would be transported in a container, but the opposite party had deviated from the same and had sent the car driven on the road, without considering the safety of the car, this negligent act of opposite parties had resulted in an accident and photographs under Ex.A5 reveal that the car was very badly damaged, the extent of damage can be ascertained based on the estimate given by Toyota Workshop under Ex.A7 and Ex.A6 reveals the driver was in inebriates condition, considering Ex.A1 to A3 and Ex.A5 to A8 it can be safely concluded that due to the failure on the part of the opposite parties to transport the car in a container severe damage has been caused to the car and complainant had to suffer loss. All these negligent acts of the opposite parties certainly amounts to deficiency of service. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of complainant.
8. Point No.3 :
Now the only point that needs to be assessed is the quantum of compensation that the complainant is entitled for. At para No.13 of complaint, the complainant has given the break-up of compensation claimed under different heads and finally sought for 11 Rs.22,83,139/-. But it is pertinent to note here that under Ex.A4 the complainant has filed the policy copy of vehicle insurance and what is manifest from Ex.A4 is that the policy is a valid and subsisting policy at the time of accident and the IDV is shown as Rs.3,44,840.00ps., that apart, the date of Registration of vehicle is shown as 1st May' 2004 which implies that the car was purchased in the year 2004 and the accident took place in the year 2018 which goes to show that the car was 14 years old. Ex.A5 photographs reveal the damage caused to the car and the estimate under Ex.A7 also proves the extent of damage. But, however, the complainant is silent with regard to; if any claim for insurance was made, the complainant had not disclosed anything about the insurance claim. Hence, an inference can be drawn that the complainant might have claimed the insurance amount. Hence, we feel that as there is no clarity with regard to insurance claim and that the car is 14 years old, we are of the view that the complainant is not entitled for the total car price but, certainly entitled for the damages.
That apart, Ex.A17 reveals that an M.V.OP has been filed against the complainant and under Ex.A17 and A18 the Air fare and Taxi fare incurred to travel to Court at Chitradurga to attend M.V.OP is filed which reveals that the complainant has incurred considerable amount to travel and under Ex.A19 and A20 the leave certificate is filed which reveals that the complainant who is a Naval Officer and serving the Nation was forced to take leave for around one month only due to the negligent acts of opposite 12 parties and waste his precious time in running around the Court and Police Station.
That apart, due to non availability of the car, the complainant might have certainly incurred expenditure for conveyance not only for himself but also, for his family which might have caused server hardship inconvenience and also mental agony. Based on the foregoing discussion, we are of the emphatic view that the complainant be suitably compensated though the said compensation cannot bring back the precious time the complainant had lost due to the negligent/deficient acts of opposite parties.
9. Point No.4 :
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to :-
a) To pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) towards the loss and damage caused to the complainant, due to the negligent and deficient acts of the opposite parties.
b) To pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh only) towards the inconvenience, hardship and mental agony caused.13
c) To pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) towards costs of litigation.
Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Steno; transcribed and typed by her; corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Court on this 22nd day of February, 2023.
SD/- SD/-
--------------------- ----------------------------
MEMBER(M-J) MEMBER (M-NJ)
Dt: 22.02.2023 .
AD*
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
Evidence affidavit of Evidence affidavit of
The complainant Opposite Parties
Soumitra Kulkarni A.K.Agarwal
EXHIBITS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.A1- is the Photostat copy of Quotation issued by the Opposite Party to the complainant, dated 17.04.2018. Ex.A2- is the Original Consignee Copy, dated 06.05.2018. Ex.A3 - is the Photostat copy of Accessories Declaration, dated 06.05.2018.
Ex.A4 -- is the Photostat copy of Reliance Motor Private Car Certificate cum Policy Schedule-Package Policy. Ex.A5 - is the Photostat copy of Photographs of damaged vehicle (3 papers) Ex.A6 - CD 14 Ex.A7 - is the Photostat copy of Repair Quotations (4 papers). Ex.A8 - is the gmail, dated 09.07.2018.
Ex.A9 - is the copy of Legal Notice, dated 27.07.2018. Ex.A10 -is the Photostat copy of Postal Receipt dated 30.07.2018 Ex.A11 - is the Photostat copy of Postal Receipt dated 30.07.2018 Ex.A12 - is the Photostat copy of Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.A13 - is the Photostat copy of Postal Acknowledgment. Ex.A14 - is the Copy of Reply Notice, dated14.08.2018. Ex.A15 - is the Photostat copy of Show Cause Notice, in MVC.
No.893/2018, in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division at Chitradurga, dated 22.12.2018.
Ex.A16 - is the Photostat copy of Petition/Application of compensation u/s 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, of 1988. Ex.A17 - is the gmail, dated 07.01.2019.
Ex.A18 - is the Photostat copy of Airlines Ticket, Boarding Pass of the Complainant, dated 11.12.2018.
Ex.A19 - is the Photostat copy of "GEN FORM", Authorize Date 15.05.2018.
Ex.A20 - is the Photostat copy of "GEN FORM", Authorize Date 06.12.2018.
Ex.A21 -is the Brochure of Opposite Parties Company. For the Opposite Parties:
Nil SD/- SD/-
--------------------- ----------------------------
MEMBER(M-J) MEMBER (M-NJ)
Dt:22.02.2023.
AD*