Haryana

Kurukshetra

251/2018

Satish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gati Cargo - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.Thakural

03 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION  KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.251 of 2018

Date of Instt.:28.11.2018.

Date of Decision: 03.01.2022

 

Satish Kumar son of Shri Khanchand, resident of house No.321, Sector 5, U.E, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.

                                                              …….Complainant.  

                                             Versus

 

1.Gati Cargo, near Fauji Dhaba,Sector 26, Transport Nagar, Mani Majra, Chandigarh.

 

2.Gati Limited Plot No.20, Servey no.12, Khotaguda Kondapur, Hyderabad, Pin – 500084.                                           ….…Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                   Ms. Neelam, Member.       

                   Shri Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.                

                 

 

Present:     Sh.S.C.Thakur Advocate for the complainant.

                Ops ex-parte.

 

 ORDER

              This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by the complainant Satish Kumar against Gati Cargo  etc., the opposite parties.

 

2.             The brief facts of the complaint are that  the complainant wanted to send some used old household items to Tauranga Port, New Zealand for use of his daughter Pavitra Dhamija and in this regard  he contacted the Ops. The Ops assured the complainant that they are doing the job of cargo in the name of Gati Cargo Movers and will send the same  there.  It is further stated that the complainant agreed to send the items. The Ops demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the said job and deal was stone for Rs.28,000/-. On 30.1.2018, the complainant booked the household items with OP No.1 and also paid an amount of Rs.28,000/-.The Ops issued bill No.208 for Rs.28000/- and consignment  No.GT.208 for Rs.28000/- was issued. The OP assured that items  would reach at the destination within 15 days. The complainant waited for about 15 days and then enquired from the Ops but the Ops replied that there was some problem in the ship and the complainant will get the items  back within 15 days. Ultimately the complainant received back the items in the third week of May 2018 but the Ops have not paid the amount of Rs.28000/- which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.  Thus, the complainant alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops has filed the present complaint and prayed that the Ops be directed to return the amount of Rs.28000/- alongwith compensation and the litigation expenses.

 

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops. The OP No.1 was duly served but failed to appear and contest the case. Therefore, OPNo.1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 21.02.2019.

 

4.             Likewise, the OP No.2 was also duly served upon but the OP No.2 also failed to appear and contest the case. Therefore, OP No.2 was also proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 18.10.2021.

 

5.             The complainant in support of his case has filed affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.

 

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant wanted to send some used old household items to Tauranga Port, New Zewzeland for use of his daughter Pavitra Dhamija and in this regard  he contacted the Ops. The Ops assured the complainant that they are doing the job of cargo in the name of Gati Cargo Movers and will send the same  there.  It is further argued that the complainant agreed to send the items. The Ops demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the said job and deal was stone for Rs.28,000/-. On 30.1.2018, the complainant booked the household items with OP No.1 and also paid an amount of Rs.28,000/-.It is argued that the  Ops issued bill No.208 for Rs.28000/- and consignment  No.GT.208 for Rs.28000/- was issued. The OP assured that items would reach at the destination within 15 days. The complainant waited for about 15 days and then enquired from the Ops but the Ops replied that there was some problem in the ship and the complainant will get the items  back within 15 days. Ultimately the complainant received back the items in the third week of May 2018 but the Ops have not paid the amount of Rs.28000/- which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

8.               The above version of the complainant completely goes unrebutted and unchallenged because the Ops failed to appear and contest  the present case despite due service.  Therefore, it is established that the complainant sent some used old household items to Tauranga Port, New Zealand for use of his daughter Pavitra Dhamija and in this regard he contacted the Ops and the complainant agreed to send the items. The Ops demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for the said job and deal was stone for Rs.28,000/-. On 30.1.2018, the complainant booked the household items  as shown  in Ex.C-4 with OP No.1 and also paid an amount of Rs.28,000/-.It is also established  that  the  Ops issued bill No.208 for Rs.28000/- and consignment  No.GT No.208 for Rs.28000/- Ex.C-1 was issued. The OP assured that items would reach at the destination within 15 days. The complainant waited for about 15 days and then enquired from the Ops but the neither the items were delivered at the destination and same were delivered back to the complainant and the amount of Rs.28000/- paid by the complainant was also not refunded to the complainant   Thus, deficiency in services on the part of the Ops is made out.

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we accept the present coplaint and direct the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.28000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of this order till its actual realization. The Ops shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- in lump sum as compensation for the mental harassment caused to the complainant and for the litigation expenses. The Ops are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties concerned, as per rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the  open Commission. .                            President.

Dated: 3.01.2022

 

                        Member             Member.