State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Branch Manager vs Rahul Kumar Singhal on 29 June, 2013
CHHATTISGARH STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PANDRI, RAIPUR(C.G.)
Appeal No.FA/12/608
Instituted on : 26.10.2012
Branch Manager,
T.C.I. Freight,
Mahamaya Road, Branch Ambikapur,
Surguja (C.G.) ... Appellant.
Vs.
Rahul Kumar Singhal, S/o Premchand Singhal,
Prop. Black Diamond Industries,
Nayanpur Girvarganj, Police Sation & Tehsil -
Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent.
PRESENT: -
HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE SHRI V.K.PATIL, MEMBER
HON'BLE MS. HEENA THAKKAR, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES: -
Shri J.P. Singh, for appellant.
Shri R.K. Gupta, for respondent.
ORDER
Dated : 29/06/2013 PER: - HON'BLE SMT. VEENA MISRA, PRESIDING MEMBER This appeal under Section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, arises out of order dated 27.09.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surguja, Ambikapur (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No.17/2012 partly allowing the complaint. Aggrieved by the order, the O.P. has preferred the appeal under consideration.
2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that complainant is proprietor of Black Diamond Industries, Nayanpur //2 // Girvarganj, Police Station & Tehsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.). He had purchased some machines which were purchased for establishing his business for earning livelihood. The said machines were purchased from Batala (Punjab) and were booked with O.P. Transport Company T.C.I. Freight from Batala (Punjab) to Nayanpur Girvarganj, P.S. & Tehsil Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) and freight of Rs.23,170/- was paid in advance. When Shri Janak Ram, driver of the transport vehicle bearing No.C.G.04/J.B.3045 brought the said consignment to the complainant's place, it was found that all informed the O.P. about the damage. The driver of the transport vehicle also admitted in writing that all the machines were damaged. On 04.08.2011 itself complaint before the Police was also lodged at Surajpur. Thereafter Shri R.K. Choudhary, Branch Manager of O.P. company visited the place and inspected broken machines. An agreement was executed on 06.08.2011 where under it was agreed that inspection would be done by surveyors of both parties within a period of five days and according to the survey report, the amount will be paid to the complainant within a period of two months. As per complaint, the complainant obtained survey report of Satrughan Prop. Lucky Engineering Works, Vishrampur, dated 10.08.2011, who had assessed loss of Rs.77,629/-. The complainant also claimed interest of Rs.2,600/- per month, which was to be paid to the Gramin Bank, Jainagar. On 09.11.2011 the complainant received a cheque from O.P. drawn on HDFC Bank, Ambikapur for Rs.22,000/- and it was assured that remaining amount as per assessment dated 10.08.2011 will be paid //3 // later on but the said amount was not paid. Hence the complaint was filed before the District Forum for claiming remaining amount of Rs.55,629/- together with interest and cost etc.
3. The O.P. resisted the complaint and it was averred in the written version that the allegation of deficiency in service is totally false and baseless. Though there was some damage to the machines, but they were not totally damaged. By using force and coercion the complainant had obtained a note from the driver to the effect that all machines have been badly damaged. It was alleged that the driver was kept in confinement and was forced to sign the said note. O.P. had further averred that it was agreed between the parties that there would be a joint survey but the complainant called his own surveyor without intimation to the O.P. and got report for exaggerated assessment. The very purpose of the complainant is to harass the O.P. Whenever the O.P. asked the complainant to get survey done the complainant did not agree. It was further averred that the O.P. got survey done in presence of the complainant and as per Surveyor's Report and the rules of the O.P. company the amount of Rs.22,000/- was paid to the complainant on 09.11.2011 by means of cheque No.313784 drawn on HDFC Bank, Ambikapur and the complainant had accepted said cheque without any grievance. The complaint is without any basis hence the same may be dismissed subject to payment of heavy cost.
//4 //
4. On the basis of material before it, the District Forum directed the appellant / O.P. to pay a sum of Rs.40,103/- to the respondent/complainant together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint and Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment and Rs.1,000/- towards cost.
5. Arguments of both parties heard. Record perused.
6. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant had sent letter dated 10.08.2011 to the appellant which is document A-5, wherein it is mentioned that the Surveyor is Shri A.P. Singh, Ambikapur, but the document A/6 has been signed by some Satrughan Prop. Lucky Engineering Works, Bishrampur (Surguja). This discrepancy makes the report suspicious hence order passed by the District Forum on the basis of such survey report cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for appellant further submitted that the District Forum has totally ignored the document D-4 which is survey report of Shri Arurendra Pratap Singh, Surveyor, filed by the appellant/O.P, hence the impugned order is not proper. The impugned order has been passed solely on the basis of the complaint supported by the affidavit of the complainant without any independent evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that such an order which has been passed without proper appreciation of the material on record deserves to be dismissed. He prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order.
//5 //
7. Learned counsel for the respondent reiterated the stand taken before the District Forum and supported the impugned order and submitted that the order passed by the District Forum does not call for any interference.
8. On perusal of record, we find that after the consignment reached its destination on 04.08.2011 and it was found that machines were damaged, the complainant made a complaint to the Police on the same day. The driver of the transport vehicle also admitted in writing vide document A/2 that almost all the machines have been badly damaged and Lathe Machine and Drill Machine have been totally damaged. It further appears that Shri R.K. Choudhary, who is the Branch Incharge of T.C.I. Company at Ambikapur, District Surguja had executed an undertaking on stamp paper duly notarized wherein it was admitted that the machines had damaged and details thereof were mentioned in the said document. It was agreed that a survey will be done by surveyors of both parties within a period of 5 days and on the basis of report, damages will be paid to the complainant within a period of two months. This document was executed on 06.08.2011. The O.P. has taken the plea that the complainant avoided to get survey conducted whenever O.P. asked for it. From collective appraisal of various documents the plea taken by the O.P. does not appear to be valid. Survey report filed by the complainant is dated 10.08.2011 whereas the other report dated 29.08.2011 filed by the O.P. as document D-4 is the report of Shri A.P. //6 // Singh, Surveyor wherein it is mentioned that Shri A.P. Singh had inspected the machineries on 04.08.2011. Such report cannot be relied for the simple reason that the agreement for getting the survey done was made between the parties on 06.08.2011, hence it cannot be said that the Surveyor of the O.P. inspected the machines in presence of the complainant prior to the date of agreement. Had it been so, the fact of survey already conducted would have been mentioned in the agreement instead of agreement between the parties to get the survey done within five days. So the report filed by the O.P. is not at all convincing.
9. The aforesaid view taken by us is further reinforced by another document which is document D-3. It is the report to Police which was made by Shri Janak Ram, driver of the transport vehicle, on 06.08.2011. It is mentioned in the report that the driver was kept in confinement by the complainant and he was badly abused and beaten by the complainant. The driver as well as the vehicle were kept as hostage by the complainant and somehow on 06.08.2011 the driver was able to run away and went to the Police Station. It is mentioned in paragraph no.3 of the said report that on intimation by the driver, the O.P. had sent a Surveyor from Ambikapur to conduct the survey and the O.P. is prepared to pay the amount as per survey report. Even despite this Shri Rahul Kumar Singhal, the complainant was not prepared to free the vehicle. We find the facts mentioned in this report to be discrepant. On one hand driver Shri Janak Ram has stated that he was kept as hostage //7 // by the complainant and was badly beaten, in these circumstances, how was he able to inform the O.P. and how and by whom survey was done has not been mentioned. It appears Janak Ram was made to lodge report with the police by way of afterthought.
10. We find that the District Forum, has not completely allowed the report filed by the complainant. It has allowed 20% lesser amount. In the circumstances of the case, we find that as new machines were damaged, the complainant must have suffered a lot of mental harassment. Damaged machines even after repairs cannot not take place of new machines, so we find that award passed by the District Forum, is on lower side, but as the complainant has not preferred any appeal, we affirm the order passed by the District Forum. The appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. The appellant shall pay Rs.1,000/- to the respondent / complainant towards cost of this appeal.
(Smt.Veena Misra) (V.K.Patil) (Ms. Heena Thakkar)
Presiding Member Member Member
/06/2013 /06/2013 /06/2013