State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.C. Sharma vs M/S Aggarwal Packers & Movers & Ors. on 10 October, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 254/2014
Date of Presentation: 15.07.2014
Date of Decision: 10.10.2014
.........................................................................
U.C. Sharma, S/o Sh. Ram Dutt Sharma,
R/o Karol House, The Mall, Shimla (HP).
.... Appellant
Versus
1. M/s. Aggarwal Packers & Movers,
3rd Floor, Kabra Complex,
61, MG Road, Sikandrabad (AP).
2. Managing Director,
M/s Aggarwal Packers & Movers,
3rd Floor, Kabra Complex,
61, MG Road, Sikandrabad (AP).
3. M/s. DRS Dilip Road Lines Pvt. Ltd.,
Corporate Office,
3rd Floor, Kabra Complex,
61, MG Road, Sikandrabad (AP).
... Respondents
...............................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Dalmia, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate.
................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Present appeal is directed against the order dated 10.06.2014, of learned District 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? U.C. Sharma Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Packers & Movers & Ors. (F.A. No.254/2014) Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, whereby appellant's complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which he filed against the respondents, has been dismissed with the finding that the appellant has failed to prove that his household goods were damaged because of any act of negligence or deficiency in service, in packing and transporting the goods and also on the ground that the goods were transported at the appellant's risk.
2. Appellant is working as a Manager in a nationalized bank. He was posted at Nagpur, from where he was transferred to Dharamshala, sometime in the month of April, 2012. So, he wanted to shift his household goods from Nagpur to Dharamshala. He hired the services of the respondents for packing his household goods and transporting the same from Nagpur to Dharamshala. A sum of `60,000/- was paid by him for packing and transporting the goods.
3. Goods were packed by the respondents and transported to Dharamshala. 2
U.C. Sharma Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Packers & Movers & Ors. (F.A. No.254/2014) The same were packed in 55 boxes/packages. The same were delivered to the appellant on 12.06.2012. On that very date, the appellant found that some of the goods were damaged and some of the packages had been pilfered. He sent an email to the respondents alongwith photographs of a damaged washing machine, a food processor, a wooden almirah, a steel almirah and damaged packing of books. Managing Director of respondent No.1, named Mukesh Aggarwal, on seeing the photographs, sent an email on the same date, i.e. 12.06.2012, to one Manoj at Nagpur, informing him that the photographs showed that the goods had not been packed properly and that plastic crates had not been used for packing electronic goods, which resulted in damage to the goods, as indicated in the photographs received from the appellant.
4. Appellant was informed that certain named person(s) were being deputed to assess the loss and to settle the claim. However, nobody visited the appellant nor was the claim 3 U.C. Sharma Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Packers & Movers & Ors. (F.A. No.254/2014) settled. Appellant, therefore, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking a direction to the respondents to pay `1.00 lac, as compensation for damage to the goods, `50,000/- for deficiency in service, `1.00 lac, for mental harassment, besides seeking refund of `60,000/-, paid on account of transportation and packing charges.
5. Notices were sent by the learned District Forum to the respondents, but they did not put in appearance. Complaint was decided by the learned District Forum, ex-parte, on the basis of evidence adduced by the appellant, vide order dated 23.03.2013. The said ex-parte order was challenged by filing a revision, before this Commission, which was allowed, and the case was remanded to the learned District Forum with the direction to allow the respondents to file reply and to defend themselves.
6. Respondents appeared and filed a reply, but after filing reply, they did not put in 4 U.C. Sharma Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Packers & Movers & Ors. (F.A. No.254/2014) appearance. Learned District Forum has, therefore, decided the complaint on the basis of evidence adduced by the appellant. Learned District Forum has dismissed the complaint with the observation that the appellant has failed to prove that the allegedly damaged goods were in good and working condition at the time, when they were handed over to the respondents, and that the goods were transported at appellant's risk, as per Goods Receipt.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
8. Appellant very categorically stated in para-2 of the complaint that services of the respondents were hired not only for transportation of the goods, but also for their proper packing and the respondents were paid a sum of `60,000/- for proper packing of the goods and also their transportation. Respondents in their reply admitted that in addition to transporting the goods, their services were engaged for packing the same. 5
U.C. Sharma Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Packers & Movers & Ors. (F.A. No.254/2014)
9. On the very day of the delivery of the goods to the appellant at Dharamshala, after being transported from Nagpur, i.e. 12.06.2012, appellant sent an email to the respondents, informing that some of the goods were damaged and the photographs of those goods were sent to the respondents. Managing Director of respondent No.1, namely Mukesh Aggarwal, on seeing those photographs, sent an email to one Manoj, a functionary of the respondents stationed at Nagpur, informing him that the photographs indicated that the goods had not been properly packed and that electronic goods were packed in card board boxes though they were required to be packed in plastic crates. That means, Managing Director of respondent No.1, acknowledged that the goods shown in the photographs, were damaged because of defective packing.
10. Now, when the goods were damaged because of defective packaging, as admitted by the Managing Director of respondent No.1 in the email sent to Manoj, on 6 U.C. Sharma Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Packers & Movers & Ors. (F.A. No.254/2014) the very day of the receipt of the complaint from the appellant, learned District Forum was not justified in dismissing the complaint on the ground that the goods were transported at appellant's risk. The goods were not damaged because of the perils of transportation, but because of defective and improper packaging.
11. The photographs, which were sent on the very day of the delivery of the goods to the appellant and which are Annexures C-5 to C-20, pertain to a washing machine, a food processor, a wooden almirah, a steel almirah and some books. In the case of books, the photographs indicate that the packaging was torn. Books are not shown to have been damaged. However, the washing machine and the food processor are shown to have been substantially damaged, while steel almirah and wooden almirah are shown to have been partly damaged. As per list of goods prepared by the respondents themselves at the time of packing, which is Annexure C-1, washing machine was worth `18,000/-, food processor was worth 7 U.C. Sharma Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Packers & Movers & Ors. (F.A. No.254/2014) `6,000/- and the two almirahs were worth `2,000/- each. Appellant has not led any evidence to show that the food processor and the washing machine are damaged beyond repair. From the photographs, it cannot be made out that the same cannot be repaired. In the absence of definite evidence, we assume that the two items can be repaired, by spending money equivalent to 50% of their cost, and the two alimrahs can be repaired, by spending `500/- on each of them. Thus, the total loss caused to the appellant comes to `14,000/-.
12. In view of the above discussion, we accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequently, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are ordered to pay a sum of `14,000/- to the appellant, on account of damage caused to the goods, to refund a sum of `10,000/-, out of the amount of `60,000/- charged from him for packing and transporting his household goods, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint to the date of payment of the 8 U.C. Sharma Vs. M/s. Aggarwal Packers & Movers & Ors. (F.A. No.254/2014) aforesaid amount of money, and to pay `10,000/-, on account of compensation for inconvenience and harassment, and `5,000/-, on account of litigation expenses.
13. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member October 10, 2014.
DC Dhiman) 9