State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Sushil Haksar vs Handiman Services Limited on 26 November, 2025
1 sc/29/cC/22s/2016
, ".f ,:ll'j'i"l ; i3: I ? i3 I 3
:
",3
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU
(PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 26th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025
coRAM: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTTCE T.c. SHTVASHANKARE GowDA - PRESTDENT
and
HON,BLE MTs. DIVYASHREE M - LADY MEMBER
sct29tcct22st20t6 B EEN:
Sushil Haksar S/o P.N.Haksar Aged about 77 years No.44, 2nd main, Defence colony, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru-560038. ......... Complainant/s (By Sri.Srinivas Chalageri, Advocate) AND:
Handiman Services Ltd., No.3, 15th cross, Anepalya Adugodi post, Bengaluru-560030. Rep. by its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory ..........Opposite party/s (By Sri.J.Hudson Samuel, Advocate) KSCDRC (PB)
2 sc/29lccl22s/2015 o R AL OR DE R (PER: HON'BLE Mr. JU.TICE T.c. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA, 'RESIDENT) This compraint is fired u/s.r2 of consumer protection Act, 1986 (in short Cp Act) seeking foilowing retiefs:
(a) To pay a sum of Rs.40 lakhs towards loss due to burglary along with interest at 1go/o
(b) To pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation and Rs.50,000/_ towards litigation cost.
(c) Pass such further order as this Commission deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Brief facts of the case are that: The Complainant is owner of house bearing no.No.44, 2,d Main, Defence Colony, Indira Nagar, Bengaluru_3g. Opposite party (in short Op) is Security service provider by supplying security guards. The Complainant engaged the services of Op for his house security and Op has deputed security guards. Between 06.05.2015 to 24.05.2015, when the Complainant was on Europe tour came to know that there had been a theft in his house.
Police complaint was filed on 24.05.20L5 through KSCDRC (PB) 3 sc/29lcc/225/2016 neighbor and FIR was registered in Crime no.183/2015 for the offences punishable U/s.454, 457 and 380 of IPC.
Investigation was done by the Indiranagar Police. Since culprits were not traced, Police filed 'C' report. Despite OP being engaged the security services, burglary taken place in his house and due to theft of the items, he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.35 to 40 lakhs. Hence alleging deficiency in service against OP the Complainant has filed this complaint.
3. OP has opposed the complaint by filing the version admitting the rendering of security services to Complainant's house. According to him, no consideration was paid by the Complainant from the month of May 2015 to July 2016. Therefore he cannot file complaint invoking provisions of CP Act. Complaint is not maintainable and sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The Complainant has filed affidavit evidence as CW-1 and marked 12 documents as Ex-C1 to C12. On behalf of OPs, Finance Manager has filed his affidavit evidences as RW-1 and 7 documents marked as Ex-R1 KSCDRC (PB) 4 sc/2s/cc/225t2}L6 to R7a. On behalf of the Complainant, written arguments is filed.
5. We gave our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by both the counsels.
6. Now, the points that arise for our consideration are:
(i)Whether the Complainant is a consumer as defined Uls.Z(d) of CpA 1986 ?
(ii) Whether the Complainant proves deficiency in service on the part of Op ?
(iii) Whether Comptainant is entitle to the relief sought for ?
Point (i)=
7. Perusal of the version, it is pertinent to note that, OP has extended the security services to the house of Complainant by deploying security guards. Though the contention of Learned Counsel for Op that, consideration was not paid, he cannot stands to his contention as Op himself admitted that he has rendered security services.
No evidence is placed on behalf of Op that, the said service was free of cost. In such circumstances, KSCDRC (PB) 5 sc/29lccl22s/2016 Complainant has to be held as a consumer. Accordingly we answer point (i).
Point (ii):
8. OP has rendered service of security guards.
Believing the security, the Complainant went to Europe tour. But during his tour, burglary taken place and valuable items were stolen. Soon after he came to know the incident, he authorized his neighbor to file police complaint. Accordingly police complaint was filed and FIR came to be registered in Crime no.1g3/2015. It is interesting to note that, even after police investigation, they did not find the culprits, thus, they filed .C, report.
9. Perusal of the records show that, estimated loss between Rs.35 to 40 lakhs. As the Complainant was having house security insurance, he made claim to the Insurance Company and Insurance Company has reimbursed a sum of Rs.31 lakhs. When received such claim amount, the Complainant cannot seek for another Rs.40 lakhs for the same loss. Therefore, there is no question of compensating the Complainant in the hands KSCDRC (PB) 6 sc/29lCC/22s/2016 of OP. But even after securing his house in the hands of OP, burglary was taken place, thereby he went through mental agony. Therefore, to that extent has to be held there is deficiency in service on the part of Op.
Accordingly we answer point (ii).
Point (iii):
10. Since the Complainant was already compensated by Insurance Company for the stolen items, there is no question of compensating for another sum of Rs.40 lakhs as claimed in the complaint.
However, the Complainant is aged about g9 years super senior citizen, for the mental agony he has suffered, he has to be compensated at Rs.25,000/_ and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to be payable by Op, Accordingly we answer point (iii).
11. In view of our findings on point (i) to (iii), we pass the following:
o D E s
(i) The comptaint is ailowed in part.
KSCDRC (PB) 7 sc/29/cc/22s/2ot6
(ii) OP is directed to pay Rs.25,OOO/-
towards compensation and Rs.5,OOO/- towards litigation cost along with interest at 9olo p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of deposit.
(iii)OP is directed to deposit the amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(iv)Supply free copy of this Order to both the parties.
(JUSTICE T.G.SHMSHANKARE GOWDA) PRESIDENT n ab tl la5 (DI HREE M) LADY MEMBER + NS* KSCDRC (PB) B scl29lccl22s/2076 ANNEXURES
01. Witnesses examined on behalf of Comolainant/s:-
CW.1 Sushil Haksar, the Complainant.
02. Documents marked on behalf of Comolainant/s:-
Ex-C1 Copy of letter dtd.10.07.2076 Ex-C2 Copy of legal notice dtd.12.09.2016 Ex-C3 Copy of postal receipt Ex-C4 Copy of letter dtd.05.08.2016 Ex-C5 Copy of complaint dtd.24.05.2015 Ex-C6 Copy of FIR Ex-C7 Copy of representation to police Ex-C8 Copy of endorsement Ex-C9 Copy of invoice cum contract receipt Ex-C10 Copy of alarm report Ex-C 1 1 Copy of insurance claim form Ex-C12 Copy of letter dtd.01.09.2015 Witnesses examined on behatf of OPs
03. RW-1 Vishwanatha, Manager Finance and Authorized Signatory of OP
04. Documents produced on behalf of OP/s Ex-R1 Copy of Board Resolution Ex-R2 Copy of order sheet in Crime no.183/2015 Ex-R3 Copy of email dtd.22.12.2015 Ex-R4 Copy of letter dtd.10 .07.2016 KSCDRC (PB) 9 sc/29/CC/225/2016 Ex-R5 Copy of repl y notice dtd .08.10.2016 Ex-R6, Copy of po stal receipts and ack nowledgements R7, R7a (JUSTTCE T.G.SHTVAS ninxnne GowDA ) PRESIDENT JT ,rlfi (D H EM) LADY MEMBER XNS* KSCDRC (PB)