A Delhi consumer commission has directed a packers and movers company to pay ₹50,000 to a customer after finding deficiency in service over damage caused to his television and shoe rack during shifting.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South-West Delhi, found that the documents produced by complainant Rajnish Kumar Ahuja supported his claim that the television box had fallen during packing and that the shoe rack was damaged during delivery.
President Suresh Kumar Gupta and member Harshali Kaur, in an order dated September 16, noted that the complainant’s evidence remained unrebutted and uncontroverted.
Ahuja had engaged the company to pack and transport his household belongings from Naraina Vihar to Gurgaon for ₹18,050. Four employees of the company arrived at his residence on October 16, 2023, and prepared a list of 50 items along with their values. The goods were delivered the following day.
According to Ahuja, his Sony LED television was checked before packing and was working properly. During the packing process, however, the box containing the television allegedly fell while the company’s employees were making space to place it with other goods.
The delivery acknowledgement contained a handwritten note by Ahuja recording that the TV box had fallen during packing and that its screen was damaged, although the television had been working before it was packed. The same note recorded damage to the shoe rack during unpacking. Photographs of the damaged items were also submitted before the commission.
Repair Estimate And Company’s Offers
After the damage was discovered, Ahuja contacted the company’s customer care and shared photographs of the television. An authorised Sony service centre initially estimated the repair cost at ₹29,618.
The service centre subsequently informed him that the required display panel could not be arranged and offered an exchange model for ₹44,788. Ahuja forwarded this communication to the packers and movers company.
The company initially rejected the claim as a “No Claim”, maintaining that its scrutiny had shown that its employees had not damaged the television. It later offered ₹10,000.
After Ahuja approached the company’s chairman, its legal department offered ₹15,000 through a letter dated February 6, 2024. Ahuja rejected the offer and filed the consumer complaint seeking ₹90,000.
Commission Rejects Company’s Defence
Before the commission, the company termed the complaint false and baseless. It contended that the television had not been declared or valued and that its liability was limited under the Carriage by Road Act.
The commission rejected the argument concerning valuation after noting that the company’s own document recorded the value of the LED television as ₹30,000.
It also observed that the documentary evidence submitted by Ahuja in support of his allegations had not been rebutted or contradicted.
The commission further recorded that the company’s defence had been struck off because it failed to file its reply within the prescribed legal period despite appearing in the proceedings.
Delay Allegation Not Accepted
The commission, however, rejected Ahuja’s separate claim that the company had delayed delivery. He had alleged that the goods were promised for delivery on October 16 and that the delay caused inconvenience.
The commission found that the alleged delay was not mentioned in his handwritten delivery acknowledgement, emails exchanged with the company or his complaint dated December 2, 2023, before the National Consumer Helpline.
It therefore declined to rely on that allegation.
Allowing the complaint, the commission held the packers and movers company deficient in service and directed it to pay ₹50,000 towards the damaged television and shoe rack, inclusive of litigation costs.
