P.N.WRITER AND CO. PVT. LTD. vs AJIT GEORGE ABRAHAM

THIS is an appeal which arises out of the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, dated 13th January, 1995 allowing the respondent''s claim to the extent of Rs. 1,08,250/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint till payment plus Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The facts in brief are that the respondent wanted to migrate to Australia along with family and settle down there permanently. The complainant/respondent approached the appellant herein to pack his household articles and store in warehouse to be subsequently shifted to Australia on receiving confirmation from the complainant/respondent. He went to Australia without definite job in hand. It was for this reason that he had given instructions that the goods were to be shifted on receiving confirmation. These instructions are contained in letter dated 27th July, 1993. Along with the letter, respondent had also remitted Rs. 45,000/- to the appellant towards transport of the goods from door to port, insurance costs and terminal charges at Australia. The respondent had further agreed to make an additional payment of Rs. 29,000/-, if the shipment was from door to door. It was a condition that the appellant was to store the material in its warehouse free of charge for two months till 23.9.1993. The storage beyond that period was to be charged at the rate indicated by the appellant. The aforesaid instructions of 27th July, 1993 were reiterated by the respondent on 30th July, 1993. Unfortunately, the respondent was not successful in securing the job suitable to his qualifications in Australia. He was also unable to rent an accommodation for himself. For that reason he instructed the appellant on 6th September, 1993 to keep the household goods till further advice. However, notwithstanding such instructions, the appellant shipped the goods from Bombay to Australia on 15th September, 1993, which resulted in a letter from the respondent to the appellant dated 26th October, 1993. The respondent had ultimately returned to India, as he was unable to settle down in Australia, on 5th March, 1994 and had incurred additional expenses to reship the goods to India. The total expenses which was proved by him before the State Commission came to Rs. 2,50,000/- and he issued a notice through his Lawyer on 10th May, 1994 which was served on the appellant on 20th May, 1994. No reply to the said notice was issued by the appellant. Appellant took up the plea before the State Commission that goods were sent pursuant to the telephonic instructions from the respondent/complainant. The appellant had disputed letter dated 30th July, 1993, 6th September, 1993 and 12th October, 1993. Even if these letters are ignored, the terms of agreement between the parties are sufficiently clear to the effect that the goods of the respondent were to be kept by the appellant in its warehouse for two months free of charge, i.e. till 23rd October, 1993 and thereafter rent was to be paid and that the goods were to be shifted to Australia only on receipt of confirmation by the complainant. The question of his having given any instructions to ship the goods could not arise. Therefore, the contention that the telephonic instructions were received appears to be a mere concoction and has been rightly disbelieved by the State Commission. The complainant who had failed to secure the job was unable to hire any accommodation, could not give telephone instructions to the appellant to ship the goods. Letter dated 26th October, 1993 has not been disputed. There, the respondent had expressed his shock and surprise at the despatch of goods which appears to be conduct quiet consistent with the plea of the respondent. If that were so, what prevented the appellant to rebut the allegations contained in letter of 26th October, 1993 or his Lawyer''s notice, service of which notice dated 10th October, 1994 has been duly proved by placing on record postal acknowledgement due and this was also not replied to, as such there appears to be no genuine rebuttal of the allegations made by the respondent. In the version filed by the appellant, the reason for despatch of goods is stated to be that the goods could be sent in the console, and the next console was to become available only in another 3 to 4 months. Therefore, the reason appears to be mere convenience of the appellant, to despatch the goods even if it happened to be contrary to the terms of the contract. For this reason, the State Commission was right in holding that there has been deficiency in service. While awarding compensation the State Commission has only awarded the payment made by the respondent to the appellant and the payment which had to be made by respondent for reshipment back to India. All the rest of the elements of the claim were disallowed. Although the appellant cannot disown liability for such consequences, which are indicated in para 9 of the impugned order, all this has not only caused tremendous amount of harassment and worry, but considerable amount of expenses had to be incurred by the respondent and for all that only a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded. We feel that the impugned order has dealt with the entire controversy in a very fair manner and for that reason we uphold the impugned order and dismiss this appeal with costs which are assessed at Rs. 3,000/-. The appellant will pay the amount due to the respondent under the original order together with Rs. 3,000/- awarded as costs, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.