At, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bangalore
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. RAMANNA
By, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE SMT. RAMA ANANTH
For the Appearing Parties: N.S. Shivashankar, Beaula, H.S. Lingaraju, Advocates.
K. Ramanna, President
1. This is a remanded matter. While disposing of the Revision Petition No.1667/2007 vide its order dated 28th April 2011 directed the parties to appear before this Commission on 23.5.2011 and directed this Commission to dispose of both the appeals within a period of four months.
2. On 23.5.2011 both the parties and their respective advocates were not present. On subsequent dates also no one represented the matters. Hence on 29.2.12, the matter was adjourned to 28.3.2012 by imposing costs of Rs.500/- payable by both the parties. Except the advocate for the Insurance Company the others remained absent. Hence we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No.1013/2006. The arguments of complainant and other OP is taken as closed.
3. Before remand, the opposite parties have preferred separate appeals challenging the order dated 9.3.2006 passed by the DF, Bangalore Urban in Complaint No.1525/2005 whereby the complaint came to be allowed directing the Carrier and the Insurance Company jointly and severally to pay Rs.65,000/- to the complainant together with costs of Rs.5000/- and to comply within four weeks failing to do so the complainant is entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% pa on Rs.65,000/- from 2.8.2005 till realization.
4. Appeal No.1001/2006 filed by M/s Prakash Packers & Movers came to be dismissed and Appeal No.1013/2006 filed by the Insurance Company came to be modified fixing the liability as against the Carriers.
5. Since the National Commission set aside the orders passed in both the appeals and remanded the matter on the ground that the impugned orders passed by the State Commission contained contradictory findings and therefore remanded the matters for deciding the two appeals afresh by common order, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties.
6. The respondent / complainant booked the household articles for transportation from Bangalore to Mumbai to OP-1. The complainant got insured the goods with OP-2 Insurance Company.
7. According to the complainant, when the good were delivered to him by OP-1 at Mumbai he was shocked to receive the same in wet condition and most of the goods including the electronic equipments were damaged. The complainant got estimated the loss through a recognized surveyor. Hence the complainant alleging deficiency in service filed the complaint which came to be allowed by the District Forum after considering the materials placed by both the parties directing both the Ops jointly and severally to pay the amount to the complainant.
8. In view of the contradictory findings passed by this Commission, on remand, it is just and necessary for us to consider as to whether the order passed by the District Forum is correct or not?
9. On careful scrutiny of the papers, the main allegation of the complainant is that he entrusted the household articles for transportation from Bangalore to Mumbai through OP-1 who collected the transportation charges but failed to transport and deliver the said consignment in time at Mumbai as promised and in good condition. Therefore, he alleged deficiency of service as against OP-1.
10. It is the case of the complainant that the good were insured with OP-2 / Insurance Company.
11. The goods when delivered to the complainant at Mumbai had in damaged condition. The said goods were damaged due to heavy rains. The complainant got estimated the said loss through a recognized surveyor.
12. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the District Forum in Complaint No.1525/2005. It is not in dispute the complainant has hired the services of OP-1 for transportation of his goods from Bangalore to Mumbai. OP-1 collected the necessary charges from the complainant but failed to deliver at the destination at right time and in good condition which goods were entrusted for transportation was insured with OP-2 Insurance Company. OP-2 / Insurance Company admitted the fact of issuing the policy to the complainant but contended that there is a breach of agreement on the part of the complainant and therefore OP-2 cannot be blamed and therefore it is not liable to pay the compensation.
13. When once the goods are insured with a good faith and whenever the goods damaged in transit, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the same. The District Forum in its impugned order has taken cognizance of all these facts into consideration.
14. From the materials placed before the District Forum, it is clear that the opponent No.1 failed to discharge its duties in deliver
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ing the goods to the complainant and when that the goods were insured with OP-2, the joint liability fixed by the District Forum, in our view is just and proper. For the fault committed by Ops, the complainant should not suffer. Therefore, we do not notice any perverse or illegality in the order passed by the District Forum. Accordingly, we pass the following: ORDER Appeals filed by the opposite parties are dismissed. The order passed by the District Forum in Complaint No.1525/2005 is confirmed.