Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/423

Abhishek Bhandari - Complainant(s)

Versus

DPS Express Packers & Movers - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Bhandari Adv.

09 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 423 of 02.06.2016

Date of Decision            :   09.03.2017 

 

Abhishek Bhandari, Advocate , #2215, Urban Estate, Phase I, Dugri, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.M/s DPS Express Packer & Mover’s BO: Shop No.15, Ist Floor, Jarnail Enclave, Phase-I, Zirakpur (behind Lucky Dhaba).

2.Davinder c/o M/s.DPS Express Packer & Mover’s, BO: Shop No.15, Ist Floor, Jarnail Enclave, Phase-I, Zirakpur(behind Lucky Dhaba).

3.Sandeep c/o Righter Packer & Movers, Shetla Enclave, Opp. Celebration Point, Near Petrol Pump, Sector 5, Mata Mandir Road, Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :          Sh.R.K.Bhandari, Advocate

For Op1                         :          Ex-parte.

For OP2 and OP3          :         Complaint not admitted vide order dated 11.7.2016.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant was seeking services of dependable company for packing and transporting the house hold goods from Ludhiana to Gurgaon and for that purpose, OP1 was engaged for transporting and packing the house hold goods of worth of Rs.1,50,000/-. Those goods were to be transported from the residence of the complainant at Ludhiana. Staff deputed by the Ops visited the house of the complainant and packed the house hold goods and thereafter, loaded in the vehicle Tata ACE No.PB-65-AA-7570 for shifting/transporting them to U8-47, DLF, Phase 3, Gurgaon. At the time of taking delivery of these goods, OP1 and OP2 claimed themselves to be having reputation of local, domestic and international shifting. Ops represented as if the complainant will have to pay Rs.5500/- as their charges for packing, loading, transporting, unloading and unpacking the house hold goods. Despite settling the sum of Rs.5500/-, OP2 issued bill No.1525 on 22.1.2016 for amount of Rs.15,047/- including Rs.5500/- as transportation charges. That bill included Rs.797/- as imaginary service charges, but Rs.1250/- as imaginary statistical charges. The act of charging extra price alleged to be amounting to cheating. Besides, grand total comes to Rs.7547/- only and not Rs.15,047/-. Rs.2000/- was paid as advance to Ops through receipt No.1517 dated 22.1.2016. Although the complainant was supposed to pay the balance amount of Rs.3500/- at Gurgaon at the time of delivery of the entrusted house hold goods, but the complainant was compelled by Ops to pay Rs.10,000/- more under compelling circumstances. That amount of Rs.10,000/- had to be paid forcibly after long drawn discussion at Gurgaon with Sahab Singh, the driver of OP3, because he came for delivery of the goods/consignment. It is claimed that bogus and imaginary bill of Rs.15,047/- has been issued and as such act of charging of extra amount is alleged to be an unfair trade practice. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.2,50,000/- even claimed.

2.                Op1 is ex-parte in this case. Complaint against OP1 alone admitted and the same was not admitted against OP2 and OP3 at the admission stage itself.

3.                Complainant in ex-parte evidence tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, his counsel closed the ex-parte evidence.

4.                Written arguments not submitted, but oral arguments of counsel for complainant alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

5.                Submissions advanced by counsel for complainant to the effect that orally amount of Rs.5500/- was settled for transportation, packing, loading, unloading and unpacking of the house hold goods of worth of Rs.1,50,000/- has no force because the contract is always arrived at in writing in such like cases and that is why bill Ex.C1 was issued on 22.1.2016 after accepting Rs.2000/- as an advance through receipt Ex.C2 and issue of consignment copy Ex.C3. Had there been oral contract to the contrary, then the complainant would not have  paid Rs.10,000/- with harsh    word on 23.1.2016 to Saheb Singh as endorsed on Ex.C1. Rather, Rs.5500/- were settled as transportation charges only. Service charges and statistical charges were in addition thereto and that is why mentioning of Rs.797/- as service charges and Rs.1250/- as statistical charges specifically made in bill Ex.C1. Total of these amounts of Rs.5500/-, Rs.797/- and Rs.1250/- comes to Rs.7547/- and not Rs.15,047/-. So, from perusal of bill Ex.C1 itself, it is made out that the complainant required to pay Rs.7547/- only when availing services of OP1 for transportation, packing, loading, unloading and unpacking of the house hold goods mentioned in list Ex.C4. However, the complainant had to pay Rs.12,000/- i.e. Rs.10,000/- on 23.1.2016 as endorsed on bill Ex.C1, but Rs.2000/- as advance through receipt Ex.C2 and as such, it is obvious that an amount of Rs.4453/- was charged in excess from the complainant for and on behalf of OP1, the service provider. It is so because total amount paid was Rs.12,000/, but the total of the amount of transportation charges/service charges/statistical charges comes to Rs.7547/- only and as such, by calculation, it comes as if Rs.12,000/- minus Rs.7547/- = Rs.4453/-, which is charged extra from the complainant. That certainly is an act of unfair trade practice on the part of OP1 and as such, complainant for sustaining mental harassment entitled for compensation therefor along with litigation expenses. Amount of Rs.4453/- charged in excess by 23.1.2016 as disclosed by contents of Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 each and as such, complainant entitled to interest @8% per annum on this excess charged amount w.e.f.23.1.2016 till realization.

6.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed exparte in terms that OP1 will refund the excess charged amount of Rs.4,453/- (Rupees Four Thousand Four Hundred Fifty Three only) with interest @8% per annum w.e.f 23.01.2016 till payment. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and litigation expenses of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP1 only. Payment of these amounts be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

7.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

         

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

                                                Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                              Dated:09.03.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.