Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/388/2023

NAVDEEP SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

AFLA PACKERS AND MOVERS - Opp.Party(s)

SATPREET SINGH

02 Dec 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/388/2023
Date of Institution	:	9/8/2023
Date of Decision	:	2/12/2024

 

Navdeep Singh S/o Late Sh. Jugraj Singh, resident of H.No 2027/2, Sector 45-C Chandigarh – 160036.

Complainant

Versus

 

Alfa Packers and Movers No. 889, office No. 4, 1 cross, 1 Main, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Sector-7, HSR layout, Bangalore - 560068 (Behind DHL Office) through their director/authorized signatory/proprietor

......Opposite Party

 

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Satpreet Singh, Advocate for complainant
	:	OP  exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OP). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that the complainant hired the services of OP who are packers and movers firm in Bangalore  for the shifting of household goods and car from Ernakulam Kerala to Chandigarh  due to his transfer. On 13.7.2021  the complainant went to the OP and had handed over car being registration No.CH 01-BA-9658 alongwith other  household articles (hereinafter referred to be as subject car and other household article) for shifting the same from Ernakulam to Chandigarh for which  an amount of Rs.41,100- was settled between the parties,  out of which an amount of Rs.33,000/-  was paid in advance to the OP. Out of the of Rs.41,100/- an amount Rs.28,500/- was for the transit of the subject car whereas remaining was for other articles.  The balance amount  of Rs.8100/- was to be paid at the arrival of the subject car and household articles in Chandigarh.  The invoice issued by the OP  is annexed as Annexure C-1. It was agreed upon by the OP that the subject car and household articles were to be delivered to the complainant within 15 days from 13.7.2021. The subject car and the household articles were packed by the OP for sending the same to the complainant at Chandigarh and at the time of delivery of the car to the OP the complainant had taken photographs qua meter reading of the car , which is annexed as Annexure C-2. However the subject car and household articles were not received within 15 days. The complainant started following up the same with Mr. Pardeep Kumar representative of the OP for the delivery of the subject car and goods and ultimately on 7-8^th July 2021, the said representative of OP informed the complainant that the subject car has been stolen in transit as such the same could not be delivered in time. It was also informed to the complainant that the subject car has been found at somewhere in Hissar, Haryana and the same will be delivered at the earliest. Thereafter on 11.8.2021 the subject car and household articles were received by the complainant and when the car was checked it was found damaged to large extent with various scratches and the interior of the car was also in bad condition. On this the complainant prepared a video which is available in the pen drive annexed as Annexure C-3.   The certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act  with respect to the video evidence recorded by the complainant from his phone and transferred to this pen drive is annexed as Annexure C-4.  Thereafter the complainant approached the OP to compensate for the loss suffered by him. Thereafter the complainant got the subject car repaired  and spent Rs.43,400/- and thereafter the  painting work was also got done for which the complainant further paid additional amount of Rs.5000/- . In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. OP was requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OPs  was properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, it was proceeded against ex-parte on 21.8.2024.
2. In order to prove their respective claims the complainant have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the complainant that he availed the  services of OP for shifting the subject car alongwith other household articles from Ernakulam (Kochi) to Chandigarh  for a settled amount of Rs.41,100/- out of which the complainant had paid Rs.33,000/- in advance and the remaining amount was to be paid at the delivery point at Chandigarh and the OP agreed to deliver the subject car alongwith other household articles to the complainant at Chandigarh within 15 days from 13.7.2021 but the same were delivered to the complainant on 11.8.2021  and when the subject car was checked it was found damaged to a large extent and the complainant had spent an amount of Rs.43,400/- for the repair of the subject car, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant and for which the documentary evidence led by the complainant is required to be scanned carefully.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-1  the tax invoice clearly indicates that an amount of Rs.41,100/- was settled between the parties for the packing and shifting of the subject car from Ernakulam to Chandigarh  out of which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.33,000/- in advance on 13.7.2021 and the balance amount of Rs.8100/- was payable by the complainant at the unloading point at Chandigarh. Annexure C-2 is the photo of the meter of the subject car showing reading of the subject car. Annexure C-3  is the pen drive and Annexure C-5 is the repair bill to the tune of Rs.22,900/- . Annexure C-6 and C-7 is the UPI payment made by the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,500/- to the repairer.  Annexure C-8 is the copy of email which indicates that the complainant lodged  complaint with the OP.
   3. As it stands proved on record that the complainant hired the services  of the OP for packing and shifting of the subject car alongwith other household articles from Ernakulam to Chandigarh due to his transfer and the complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.33,000/- to the OP  and the subject car was to be delivered within 15 days from 13.7.2021, when the same were handed over to the OP but the same were delivered to the complainant with delay   of almost one month i.e. on 11.8.2021 and further more it is evident from the  material available in the pendrive that the complainant had handed over the subject car to the OP in good condition  but when the same was received at Chandigarh, the same was found with multiple scratches and some parts and mats were missing from the car, it is suffice  to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP as it failed to adhere to the promise made by it and delivered the subject car to the complainant in damaged condition, which caused a lot of mental agony to the complainant.
   4. So far as the quantum of relief is concerned, the bill Annexure C-5 placed on record does not bear the stamp of the repairer who issued the same and it seems to be a created document by the complainant.  As Annexure C-6 and C-7 show payment of Rs.20,500/- only made by the complainant through UPI, hence, the complainant is entitled for the said amount only.  However, the complainant shall pay the balance amount of Rs.8100/-  if already not paid to the OP towards balance amount after compliance of aforesaid directions by OP.  
   5. In view of the foregoing, it is held that the aforesaid act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OP. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP is directed as under :-

 

1. to pay ₹20,500/- (less Rs.8100/-  if already not paid  by the complainant as per directions in para 3(iv) above) to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of delivery of the car to the complainant by the OP onwards
2. to pay lumpsum amount of  ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and towards cost of litigation;

 

5. This order be complied with by the OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 2/12/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member