Renu Sharma Vs. Aggarwal Packers and Movers Drs Transport (P) Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

consumer protection act, 1986 - section 2(1)(g), section 14(1)(d) - comparative citation: 2010 (1) cpj 397.....forum vide its order dated 19.2.2008 towards the loss in respect of goods transported, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 2. the relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant hired the services of respondent for transportation of complete household goods from bangalore to gurgaon. as per terms and conditions of agreement, respondent was to pack all goods in bangalore and unpack of goods at gurgaon at the time of delivery. the appellant paid the amount of transportation charges by two cheque no. 325918 dated 29.10.2006 for rs. 62,150 and another cheque no. 325917 dated 29.10.2006 for rs. 10,450. the consignment was also insured, after payment of additional sum of 3%. respondent delivered the goods to appellant at gurgaon on 4.11.2006 but the appellant was shocked to notice that many of the articles were horribly damaged and some items were missing. the appellant lodged her complaint immediately to the respondent. officers of respondent visited at her residence on 6.11.2006. the appellant gave the estimate of loss to the officers who assured to compensate her accordingly. but respondent failed to respond to the complaint of appellant. the appellant was forced due to.....

Judgment:

J.D. Kapoor, President (Oral):

1. Feeling dissatisfied with the amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000 awarded by the District Forum vide its order dated 19.2.2008 towards the loss in respect of goods transported, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the appellant hired the services of respondent for transportation of complete household goods from Bangalore to Gurgaon. As per terms and conditions of agreement, respondent was to pack all goods in Bangalore and unpack of goods at Gurgaon at the time of delivery. The appellant paid the amount of transportation charges by two cheque No. 325918 dated 29.10.2006 for Rs. 62,150 and another cheque No. 325917 dated 29.10.2006 for Rs. 10,450. The consignment was also insured, after payment of additional sum of 3%. Respondent delivered the goods to appellant at Gurgaon on 4.11.2006 but the appellant was shocked to notice that many of the articles were horribly damaged and some items were missing. The appellant lodged her complaint immediately to the respondent. Officers of respondent visited at her residence on 6.11.2006. The appellant gave the estimate of loss to the officers who assured to compensate her accordingly. But respondent failed to respond to the complaint of appellant. The appellant was forced due to total inaction on the part of respondent to serve legal notice. The appellant assessed the loss to Rs. 1,35,800 due to inept handling of consignment by respondent and prayed for directions to respondent to pay a sum of Rs. 1,35,800 with interest, cost and compensation.

3. Though the respondent disputed the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum but this objection was well taken care of on merits. The respondent pleaded that goods of appellant were packed under her supervision. Respondent denied damage to some of the items of the consignment. Respondent pleaded that all damaged parts were either replaced or repaired and the appellant issued satisfaction notice on 5.11.2006.Respondent denied any deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4. The District Forum has referred to clinching documents which give the details of the loss as under:

Sl. No.	Items	Price (as per cost of repair of packing list in Rs.)
1.	Microwave oven	6,800
2.	Sofa	6,000
3.	Fridge	10,000
4.	TV	10,000
5.	Carpet	1,000
6.	Monitor	10,000
7.	Dressing glass	1,000
8.	Crockery	18,000
9.	Suitcases	8,000
10.	Dining glass	5,000
11.	Cloths	26,000
12.	Centre table glass	3,000
13.	Computer hard disk damaged	10,000.
14.	2 gents wrist watches missing	5,000
15.	Damaged stabilizer	3,000
16.	2 crystal show pieces missing	3,000
17.	Crockery cabinet	1,000
	Total :	1,35,800

5. The observations of the District Forum are that except item No. 1 respondent has not explained as to how he had assessed the loss and there is no description as to what is the extent of damage. This was hardly a ground for reducing the claim of the appellant to such a low level.

6. For instance, the District Forum confronted the appellant as to claim of Rs. 26,000 towards the dry cleaning of the clothes. For such household articles as referred above, no body is required to keep the receipt for dressing glass, dining glass, clothes, centre table glass, crockery, etc.

7. However, taking over all view of the case and the grievance of the appellant, we deem that in the interest of natural justice, the respondent is directed to pay Rs. 50,000 as a lump sum compensation for the loss and for mental agony, harassment, etc. which shall include the cost of litigation.

8. So far as the objection of territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it has no force as Section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides that the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business orhas a branch office or personally works for gain. Respondents have their office at Delhi and as such Delhi District Forum has a jurisdiction.

9. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

10. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

11. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.

Ordered accordingly.