Mumbai: Damaged goods not guaranteed but petitioner gets compensation

The order passed on September 30, 2022, was passed on a complaint of Sion Koliwada resident Shanti Singh against Delhi-based Purvanchal Packers and Movers.

Ashutosh M Shukla Updated: Saturday, November 12, 2022, 09:03 AM IST
District consumer commission has directed compensation, even though the damage was covered under any guarantee. | Picture for representation

District consumer commission has directed compensation, even though the damage was covered under any guarantee. | Picture for representation

Mumbai: A district consumer commission has directed a compensation of Rs 50,000 for mental agony due to deficiency in service when goods were damaged after transport, even though the complainant could not prove that such damage was covered under any guarantee. The commission also directed Rs 20,000 towards litigation costs.

The order passed on September 30, 2022 (uploaded November 10), was passed on a complaint of Sion Koliwada resident Shanti Singh against Delhi-based Purvanchal Packers and Movers. The order was passed by SS Mhatre (president) and MP Kasar (member) of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission(Central Mumbai).

Singh had bought some products and had sought the services of Purvanchal Packers and Movers in December 2021 to move them from Delhi to Bhadhohi (Uttar Pradesh). However, when the goods arrived in UP, they were in a damaged condition. She also complained that the right almirah was not given. Purvanchal told her that she will be compensated by the insurance company and so she sent photographs and details of the products. However, instead of being compensated, her number was blocked by the agency over a period of time. When Singh sent a notice, it did not reach them by post due to insufficient address. She later sent an email notice. At this point, Purvanchal replied stating that they were not responsible and that she can go ahead with the litigation.

During the hearing, the commission observed that from the photos, one could see that most goods were damaged. However, it stated that documents did not show that guarantee was given on damage products. The commission also observed that while Singh may not be entitled for a refund of the amount or reimbursement of the cost of all the damaged products, she is held competent for compensation from Purvanchal towards mental agony suffered and the litigation costs she had to bear due to the damaged goods she received.

Calling it a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the commission gave the order for compensation which is to be provided within 30 days of receipt of the order.

Published on: Saturday, November 12, 2022, 09:03 AM IST

RECENT STORIES