Mover Ordered To Pay Delhi Man Rs 50,000 For Damaged TV, Shoe Rack

A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi has directed a moving and transportation company to pay Rs 50,000 to a consumer after his television and shoe rack were damaged while his household belongings were being shifted from Delhi to Gurugram.

The Commission held the company deficient in service and directed it to pay the amount towards the damaged items and litigation costs.

According to the complaint, the consumer paid Rs 18,050 to the company on October 16, 2023, for packing, transporting and unpacking his household belongings. He was allegedly assured that the goods would be delivered to his new address on the same day.

Four employees of the company reached his residence in Naraina Vihar and began packing the household articles, including an LED television.

The complainant alleged that the television was checked and found to be in working condition before it was packed. However, while the employees were making space to place the packed items, the box containing the television fell.

The consumer claimed that he witnessed the incident and that the employees did not inspect the television after that. When the items were delivered, the complainant found that the television had been damaged.

The Commission noted that the complainant had made a handwritten entry on the delivery acknowledgement recording that the TV box had fallen during packing and that the screen was damaged. The note also stated that the television had been checked and was in working condition before packing.

The complainant also reported damage to a shoe rack and submitted photographs of both damaged items.

'No Claim'

He then approached the company's customer care and shared photographs of the damaged television. The company initially closed his claim, stating that its employees had not caused the damage.

The complainant initially obtained an estimate of Rs 29,618 from the brand's authorised service centre for repairing the television. Later, the service centre informed him that the required display panel could not be arranged and offered an exchange model for Rs 44,788.

The complainant shared the communication with the company and also approached its chairman.

The company's legal department then offered him Rs 15,000 towards the damaged television. The complainant rejected the offer and sought Rs 90,000 towards the damaged items, loss of enjoyment of his property and delay in service.

Defence Rejected

The company argued that the complaint was false and that the television had not been declared or valued. It also claimed that its liability was restricted under the Carriage by Road Act.

The Commission, however, rejected this contention, noting that the company's own document contained the value of the LED television as Rs 30,000. It observed that the company's defence had been struck off after it failed to file its reply within the statutory period despite appearing before the panel. 

The Commission noted that it had found the company deficient in service, and that the complainant's allegations were supported by documentary evidence and had remained unrebutted. It did not, however, accept the complainant's claim regarding delay in delivery of the household goods.

It noted that the alleged delay was not mentioned in the delivery acknowledgement, the emails exchanged with the company or the complaint filed before the National Consumer Helpline.

The company was directed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs 50,000 towards the damaged television and shoe rack, inclusive of litigation costs. The amount has to be paid within three months.

In case of failure to comply, the company will be liable to pay 9% annual interest on the entire amount from July 10, 2024, the date of admission of the complaint.