SUMAN SINGLA Vs. M/S. DESHMESH CRANE SERVICES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant / petitioner engaged the services of the respondents for shifting her bakery machinery from Kather to Kailar in District Solan of Himachal Pradesh. A crane was deployed by the respondent for shifting the said machinery. At Kailar, the machinery was required to be lifted to the second floor, using a crane for the purpose. The case of the complainant is that after the machinery, including the oven of the bakery had been transported by the respondents from Kathar to Kailar, the crane driver lifted the oven of the bakery using the hook of his crane with an extension lever. The said hook however, gave way after the oven had already been lifted by the crane. As a result, the oven fell on the ground and got damaged. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid deficiency in the services rendered to her, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation, along with interest and cost of litigation etc. The aforesaid amount comprised repair charges, salary of staff, labour for one month, crane charges, truck charges, rent of the factory of the complainant for one month and miscellaneous expenses.

(2.) The complaint was resisted by the respondent. It was admitted in the reply that the complainant had engaged the services of the respondents for transporting the bakery machinery from Kathar to Kailar. It was however, stated that when the driver tried to lift the oven, he could not initially do so and therefore, refused to carry out the assignment, due to the oven being heavy. The complainant however, told him that the weight of the oven being less than 1000 kgs., he should make one more attempt to lift the oven at her responsibility. Based upon the said representation made by the complainant, as regards the weight of the oven, the driver applied the hook on the oven and operated the crane but the oven being heavy, the hook gave way and the oven consequently fell on the ground.

(3.) The District Forum vide its order dated 20.4.2015 dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.