w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Prakash Packers & Movers v/s Chaitanya Mhatre Akai Consumer Electronics (I) Ltd. & Another


Company & Directors' Information:- AKAI CONSUMER ELECTRONICS INDIA LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29305DL1999PLC100556

Company & Directors' Information:- A S J MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1989PTC034770

Company & Directors' Information:- MOVERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U29244KA1979PTC003510

Company & Directors' Information:- L C PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U25202DL2012PTC241798

Company & Directors' Information:- MHATRE ELECTRONICS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U30007MH1993PTC070925

Company & Directors' Information:- S R MOVERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U63031WB1988PTC044863

Company & Directors' Information:- K M D PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74950DL2000PTC104742

Company & Directors' Information:- A G MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15542CH1999PTC022472

Company & Directors' Information:- PACKERS INDIA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U99999MH1985PTC038391

Company & Directors' Information:- Q E D PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74950DL2001PTC110725

Company & Directors' Information:- S S A S PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21029WB2012PTC179508

Company & Directors' Information:- C T A MOVERS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51103WB1989PTC047754

Company & Directors' Information:- PRAKASH PACKERS AND MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090KA2005PTC035921

Company & Directors' Information:- PACKERS AND MOVERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60231PN2000PTC015145

Company & Directors' Information:- MOVERS-N-PACKERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60231PN2000PTC015146

Company & Directors' Information:- J. S. PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U36991UP1995PTC018211

Company & Directors' Information:- V J MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U60231DL2004PTC131550

Company & Directors' Information:- PACKERS (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U14102KA1999PTC024636

Company & Directors' Information:- PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U21010MH1968PTC014058

Company & Directors' Information:- K B S PACKERS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999UP1972PTC003540

Company & Directors' Information:- AKAI ELECTRONICS PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999MH1982PTC027607

Company & Directors' Information:- CHAITANYA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U32300TG1984PTC004420

Company & Directors' Information:- S A E MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72200PN2001PTC016159

Company & Directors' Information:- A & A PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63090UP2011PTC047868

Company & Directors' Information:- S H K PACKERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U21000HP2013PTC000458

Company & Directors' Information:- MOVERS PRIVATE LIMITED [Under Liquidation] CIN = U00349KA1976PTC002985

    REVISION PETITION NO. 1667 OF 2007

    Decided On, 28 April 2011

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA
    By, MEMBER

    For the Petitioner : Nikhil Bhardwaj, Advocate with Sanjay Shah, Advocate. For the Respondents : Chaitanya Mahatre, Advocate.



Judgment Text

V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER


By way of present revision petition, there is challenge to orders dated 9.3.2006, 25.4.2006 and 14.2.2007 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (Urban) Bangalore (for short ?District Forum?) and Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short ?State Commission?) respectively.


2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1/ complainant filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ?Act?) seeking compensation of Rs.6 lakhs on the allegations of deficiency in service.


3. Respondent No.1 availed the services of petitioner to transport his household articles including the electronic goods from Bangalore to Mumbai. The said consignment was also got insured. The consignment left Bangalore on 22.7.2005. Respondent No.1 had expected that it will reach Mumbai by 24.7.2005. But to his great shock and surprise, the consignment reached on 2.8.2005. When the goods were delivered to him, they were in wet condition and most of the goods including electronic equipments were damaged. Immediately, he informed the petitioner with regard to the said damages. There was no proper response. Respondent No.1 got estimated the said loss and damages through a recognized surveyor. The repeated requests and demands made by respondent No.1 to the petitioner to settle the claim and pay compensation have gone in vain. Though, petitioner collected all the necessary transportation charges, but it failed to transport and deliver the said consignment in time and in good condition. Accordingly, complaint for deficiency in service was filed. Later on, respondent No.1 impleaded the Insurance Company, i.e. respondent No.2.


4. On appearance, petitioner filed his version denying all the allegations made by respondent No.1 in toto. As per petitioner?s defence, the said consignment was transported in a closed container, which reached Mumbai on 24.7.2005. Petitioner has taken proper care in transporting the said goods, but due to heavy rains the said vehicle was forced to be parked about 20 kms. away from Mumbai. Rain water gushed into the vehicle and some goods became wet. Thereafter, the said vehicle was towed, then the goods were delivered on 2.8.2005. The delay in transportation and delivery of the goods is a Force Majeure not within the control of the petitioner or its driver. The claim of the compensation is highly exorbitant. There is no breach of contract or deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the petitioner.


5. Respondent No.2, insurance company also filed its objections stating that they are not liable to pay the said compensation as prayed as it was not given any opportunity to inspect or survey the damaged consignment. There is a breach of agreement on the part of respondent No.1 himself. The said goods were under the custody of the petitioner and they got damaged due to mishandling and negligence, for which respondent No.2 cannot be blamed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.2.


6. District Forum, vide order dated 9.3.2006 allowed the complaint in part. Petitioner and respondent No.2 herein, were jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.65,000/- to the complainant, together with a cost of Rs.5000/-.


7. Being dissatisfied with the order of District Forum, petitioner filed appeal (No.1001/2006) before State Commission, which vide its order dated 25.4.2006, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The operative part of the order reads as under :


?It is not in dispute that the complainant got insured the goods with OP No.2. If that is so, OP No.2 would satisfy the award as the policy covered the risk. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. With this observation, we pass the following :


ORDER


Appeal is dismissed.?


8. Respondent No.2 ? New India Assurance Co. Ltd. had also filed a separate appeal (No.1013 of 2006) challenging the order dated 9.3.2006 passed by District Forum. The State Commission vide its order dated 14.2.2007, modified the order of District Forum as under :


?1. Opposite party No.1/Carrier is directed to pay Rs.65,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.5,000/-.


2. This order is to be complied with within two months from today, failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest at 9% p.a. on Rs.65,000/- from 2.8.2005.


3. Opposite party No.2/Insurance Co. has deposited a sum of Rs.32,500/- in this appeal before this Commission. Office is directed to refund the same to opposite party No.2, if a memo is filed to that effect.?


9. In view of the above two orders passed by the State Commission, it is contended by ld. Counsel for the petitioner that above orders passed in the appeals are contradictory.


10. The other contention of ld. Counsel for petitioner is that the fora below did not consider the fact that as per G.R. issued by the petitioner, the goods were transported entirely at the owner?s risk and petitioner is not responsible for any loss damage caused to the goods even by wet condition.


11. Lastly, it is contended that goods were insured by respondent No.1 himself, with respondent No.2 and thus, the liability if any, is of the respondent No.2 only.


12. As per record, present petitioner as well as respondent No.2, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., have filed separate appeal against the order passed by District Forum. The State Commission has given contradictory findings in these two appeals. In the appeal filed by the petitioner (No.1001 of 2006), the State Commission has directed that respondent No.2 - New India Assurance Co. Ltd. would satisfy the award as the policy covers the risk. Whereas, in appeal filed by respondent No.2 herein (No.1013 of 2006), State Commission directed respondent No.1 - Carrier to pay Rs.65,000/- to the complainant with cost of Rs.5,000/- and at the same time, it also directed that a sum of Rs.32,500/- deposited by respondent No.2, New India Assurance C

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

o. Ltd., be refunded to it. 13. In view of the contradictory findings given by State Commission in appeal (No.1001 of 2006) and appeal (No.1013 of 2006), the present revision petition filed by the petitioner is accepted and impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the State Commission for deciding above mentioned two appeals a fresh by common order, in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties. 14. State Commission shall make endeavor to dispose of the above two appeals, within a period of four months after the parties appear before it. 15. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 23.5.2011.
O R