This is an appeal filed under section 15of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the Opposite parties in CC No.452/2012. on the file of District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad feeling aggrieved by orders dated 27.06.2014 in partly allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs. 60,000/- and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs granting time of (30) days, failing which, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum on Rs. 60,000/-.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3. The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that on account of his transfer from Noida to Hyderabad, the Complainant booked consignment of his household articles/items numbering 130 worth Rs. 10,00,000/- through Opposite parties for shipment from Noida to Hyderabad with comprehensive insurance coverage by paying the charges of Rs. 53,000/-. The total items were insured for a premium of 3% of total estimated value which comes to Rs. 30,000/- and the same was collected by the Opposite parties. An undertaking was given by the Opposite parties that the goods will be delivered in good condition without any damage. Accordingly, the goods were unloaded on 12.05.2012 at Hyderabad during which time, it is noticed that 16 items were damaged during the course of transportation. The value of the damaged items were assessed at Rs. 3,15,000/-, as shown in the tabular form in the complaint. As the Opposite parties failed to compensate the loss, the present complaint came to be filed with a prayer to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs. 4,90,000/- together with interest @ 18% p.a. and costs of the complaint.
4. Opposite parties filed their written version admitting booking of the consignment consisting of 130 articles, out of which 8 articles were damaged but not 16 articles as alleged. The total worth of damaged articles comes to Rs. 61,000/- that too the same can be repaired with a minimum expenditure of Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. Therefore, the claim of Complainant is excessive and accordingly prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and the documents Ex.A1 to A9. On behalf of the Opposite parties, one A.K.Agarwal, their Director filed his affidavit evidence and the document Ex.B1.
6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.452/2012, by orders dated 27.06.2014, as stated, at paragraph No.1, supra.
7. Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellants preferred this appeal contending that the forum below failed to observe that the damaged articles could be repaired and thereby allowed the complaint which is against the principles of natural justice.
8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner' To what relief ?
9. After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite parties in extenso, what is noticed is that the order of the Forum below cannot be found to be in any way erroneous warranting interference. Admittedly, the Respondent/ Complainant has booked consignment of his household articles from Noida to Hyderabad and Ex.A3 is the consignment receipt which was issued by the Appellants/Opposite parties and also the approximate value thereof has been clearly mentioned. During the course of transit, it appears that several items of the Respondent/ Complainant were damaged but the Appellants/Opposite parties did not concede to the submission of the Respondent/ Complainant that all the items were damaged. However, the Appellants/Opposite parties has clearly admitted through-out the proceedings that items bearing serial numbers 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 15 and 16 only were damaged during transit but no other articles. While admitting the fact that the above items were damaged as against the face value has been mentioned by the Appellants/Opposite parties under Ex.A3, it is the submission of the Appellants/Opposite parties that it will take only about Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- for repairing the said damaged items. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the direction of the District Forum to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the Respondent/Complainant cannot be countenanced.
10. I see no substance in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants/Opposite parties for the reason that it does not lie in the mouth of the Appellant transporter to say that even though the household items were damaged in transit due to their negligence and deficient services, the Respondent/Complainant/owner of the goods can get them repaired and put it to use. Once the articles have been entrusted to the transporter, the same has to be delivered in as is where is condition and if there is damage, invariably the conclusion that can be drawn is that the transporter is guilty of negligent while transporting the goods and therefore the services rendered by the Opposite parties are deficient. The District Forum has properly apprec
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
iated the material on record and has taken the value of the goods damaged and even though the value of the goods are quantified at Rs. 61,000/-, the Forum has only awarded Rs. 60,000/- and therefore there are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the same and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. There are no merits in the appeal. 11. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed but in the circumstances, no costs. Time for compliance: four weeks. If not paid by then, the amount awarded by the forum below shall carry interest @ 9% per annum thereon till payment.