advantageconsumer.com
Consumer Protection Council, Rourkela |
|
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi REVISION PETITION NO. 367/2004 (From the order dated 9-12-03 in Appeal No. 491/03 of the State Commission, Karnataka) M/s
Prakash Road Lines Ltd.
.. Petitioner
BEFORE : Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N.Kapoor, Presiding Member, Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member. Dated: 22-03-2004 Per Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member : This Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 9th December 2003 by the State Commission, Karnataka in Appeal No.491/03 dismissing the appeal filed by M/s Prakash Road Lines Ltd. who is a petitioner here. Brief facts of the case are: Shri R.S.Chandel the Original Complainant booked a consignment consisting of five trunks, two bags and a cycle at Chandigarh office of the Petitioner vide consignment Note No.1997460 dated 9.4.2001 for delivering the same at Bangalore. Although the consignment was delivered at Bangalore the Complainant found that the household goods were completely damaged. Although he addressed several letters and brought these facts to the notice of OP it was ignored and hence he filed the complaint with the District Forum, Bangalore. District Forum after going through all the materials placed before them held that the OP was deficient in service and allowed the complaint. District Forum directed OP to pay Rs.40000 with interest at 9% p.a. from 24-6-2001 till payment with cost of Rs.4000/-. This has been upheld by the State Commission.
The Petitioners argument is that the Respondent/Complainant did not disclose
the contents of the trunks and gunny bags nor did he give any value of
the aforesaid articles or bills at the time of booking at Chandigarh. Although
an advance of Rs.1500/- was paid against agreed amount of Rs.2500/- the
balance of Rs.1000/- remains still unpaid. The second contention raised
is that the Respondent fails to insure the goods and hence the consignment
was carried at owners risk for which the petitioner cannot be made liable
for the damages claimed. It is also argued that the Respondent first lodged
a claim of Rs.40,000/- vide his letter dated 26-4-2001 wherein he did not
claim damage of Rs.2000/- to the music system. But thereafter through advocate
notice he claimed a sum of Rs.80,000/- without substantiating the same
which shows that his motive was to make unlawful gains. After going through
the records and hearing the arguments of the Petitioner we find there is
no material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. It is consignment
which arrived at Bangalore was opened in the presence of the agent of the
Petitioner (OP) and it was noticed that the damage was caused to the television,
sewing machine, crockery items, flask, iron, VCR and other items. Considering
the complainant was shifting residence from Chandigarh to Bangalore, these
were all his personal possession and although they are used, a claim for
damages that was awarded Rs.40,000/- does not seem any exaggerated amount
or a false claim. It is the responsibility of the Petitioner being a reputed
transporter to take care and caution while transporting the goods. When
Respondent brought to the notice of the Petitioner regarding the damages
caused to his personal belongings, the Petitioner did not respond to the
demand at that relevant time which amounts to deficiency in service. As
far the claim of the enhanced damages, taking into consideration the market
value of the damaged articles as on the date cannot be called that the
Respondent has made a false claim. District Forum and State Commission
have given correct reasoning and allowed only Rs.40,000/- which was the
original claim. We do not see any material irregularity or jurisdictional
error in the order of the State Commission for us to interfere in our revisional
jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act. Revision Petition
is dismissed.
Top |
|