State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Agarwal Packers & Movers vs Mr.Anuj Sethi on 1 April, 2014
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/11/551
(Arisen out of Order Dated 05/02/2011
in Case No. CC/08/376 of District Forum Mumbai Suburban
1. Agarwal Packers & Movers
DRS Group, Kabra Complex
61, M.G.Road, Secunderabad
Andhra Pradesh 500 003
2. D.R.S.Transport
Agarwal Packers Movers
Flat no.301, Plot No.127/B
Prestige Chamber
Kalyan
Street, Danabunder
Mumbai 400 009
...........Appellant
Versus
Mr.Anuj Sethi
R/o.505/A, Silver Crest Apartment
Wing-B, Raheja Vihar, Chandivali
Powai, Mumbai 400 076
...........Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR.
JUSTICE R.C.Chavan PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR.
Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Mr.P.B.Kadam -Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Ajay
Pawar-Advocate i/b. Mr.A.V. Patwardhan -Advocate for the respondent
ORDER
Per Honble Justice Mr.R.C.Chavan, President This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban, partly allowing consumer complaint no.376/2008 and directing the appellants to pay a sum of `1,30,000/-
towards compensation for the damage to the household articles, `25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment and `10,000/- towards costs.
Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:-
The complainant was serving with Private Limited Company and had been transferred from Delhi to Mumbai in April, 2008. Appellants services were hired for moving his articles from Delhi to Mumbai. Articles were to be transported in a 20 feet container, which was possibly loaded with articles packed by the appellant. Articles were insured for a sum of `3,00,000/- for which complainant had agreed to pay insurance premium in the sum of `9000/-. Complainant was to pay a sum of `40,550/- towards transportation charges in addition to the sum of `9,000/- for insurance cover and receipt was accordingly signed. Articles were packed on 19/04/2008 and loaded in a 20 feet closed container and were expected to be delivered at Mumbai on 29/04/2008. Articles however finally arrived on 01/05/2008 in an open truck.
Many articles were broken and in a mutilated condition and several articles were missing. Seals of several plastic containers were open. Complainant contacted the appellants officers and on 23/06/2008, appellants officers offered a sum of `30,000/-
towards compensation, which the complainant refused to accept. He sent a notice and then followed it up by filing a complaint claiming compensation of `1,50,000/- towards loss to the articles and `1,50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.
Appellant appeared and contested the complaint and denied that the articles were delivered in a damaged condition. After considering the evidence tendered, forum came to pass the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, appellant is before us. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.
There is no doubt that the complainants household articles were supposed to be transported in a 20 feet container, as could be seen from the lorry receipts which have been placed on record. There can also be no doubt that the goods were in fact delivered in an open truck, photographs whereof have also been placed on record. There is also no doubt that the articles did suffer some loss as appellant had offered a sum of `30,000/- in settlement. There is no doubt that the articles had been agreed to be insured for a sum of `3,00,000/-. Now the question is whether the forum was justified in awarding compensation in these circumstances.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainants articles were in fact repaired as could be seen from an E-mail sent to the complainant by Mr.Gajendraa Kabade, Principal Surveyor. Therefore, if there was any damage, it had been repaired and so no compensation was required to be ordered to be paid.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in fact the container had met with an accident when both the front tyres burst and then the articles had to be shifted in another vehicle and that this resulted in some damage, for which the complainant had been compensated.
District Forum rightly held that the story of container meeting with an accident had not been pleaded in the written version. There was no evidence of persons who unloaded the goods from the container and loaded them in the truck to prove that there could not have been any loss. Therefore, we do not find as to how the observation of the District Forum that the complainant suffered a loss to his household goods could be assailed. Complainant had himself mentioned that he had suffered loss of `1,29,100/-, which was his initial assessment of damage and pilferage. Therefore, District Forum fixed the compensation amount at `1,30,000/-, which could not at all be assailed.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant had in fact not paid a sum of `49,550/- as per the quotation for transportation of the goods. Though the learned counsel for the complainant sought to submit that in fact this amount has been paid, we find from reading from the complaint, that the complainant has claimed to have paid only a sum of `9,000/-
towards the insurance premium. Thus, a sum of `40,550/- was not paid. If the complainant is to be compensated for the loss caused in the transportation of goods, the complainant should also bear the expenses incurred in transportation, which he had agreed to pay and, therefore, this sum of `40,550/- would have to be deducted from the sum of `1,30,000/-
which have been ordered to be paid by the appellant company. We therefore, reduce the compensation to `90,000/-.
In view of this, following order is passed:-
ORDER Appeal is partly allowed. Impugned order passed by the District Forum is modified as under:-
Appellant/org.opponent is directed to pay an amount of `90,000/- to the respondent/ complainant along with compensation of `25,000/- and costs of `10,000/-.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 1st April, 2014.
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE R.C.Chavan] PRESIDENT [HON'ABLE MR. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member Ms.