CC No.997/2015

Filed on 23.05.2015

Disposed on 02.01.2017

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BANGALORE – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 2^nd DAY OF JANUARY 2017

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.997/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

PRESENT:

     Sri.  H.S.RAMAKRISHNA B.Sc., LL.B.

              PRESIDENT

                     Smt. L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                                 MEMBER

                                          V/S

ORDER

BY SMT. L.MAMATHA, MEMBER

1. This is a Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Party to pay to the tune of Rs.1,20,675/- to the Complainant and to direct the Opposite Party to pay cost of the Complainant and to grant such other reliefs to the Complainant.
2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under:

In the Complaint, the Complainant has submitted that he was impressed by the colorfully, clandestinely and surreptitiously worded website engaged the services of the Opposite Party to transport the household Articles of his daughter to Mumbai. The Opposite Party has approached the Complainant and agreed to transport the Articles from Bangalore to Mumbai and assured that the Articles shall be delivered between four to five days.   The Opposite Party further assured that the Articles shall be delivered at the doorsteps of Consignee i.e., Smt.Shilpa Johar.  The Opposite Party has collected materials on 19.04.2015 vide Consignment Note No.BNG943A758 and raised the Bill for Rs.11,184/-.  The Complainant has paid the aforesaid sum vide cheque No.160784 dt.19.04.2015 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Ganganagar, Branch, Bangalore.  Though it was assured that the Articles shall be delivered within five days, but it was not.  On repeatedly calling Mr.Rohit Sharma on his mobile No.9916699194, finally told that the materials have reached Secunderabad and instructed to contact No.09886992965.  Since, the Complainant was worried and interested in his Articles, called that mobile number.  The recipient of the call, though acknowledge the receipt of Articles, demanded further sum to shift/transport the Articles from Secunderabad to Mumbai. The Complainant tried to contact Mr.Rohit Sharma but was not available neither in phone nor in the address mentioned in the Bills.  Since his daughter was in badly in need of Articles, agreed to pay the transport charges from Secunderabad to Mumbai and Secunderabad person instructed Complainant to contact one Sri.Naseer at No.09322551517 in Mumbai. And it was told to collect materials from his place i.e., Varshi, Mumbai.  The Complainant submits that the Opposite Party had agreed to deliver the Articles at the door steps in Mumbai.  The Complainant’s daughter was forced to rush from Versova to Varshi and for that purpose she engaged the services of OLA Cabs costing Rs.1,890/-.  The said Naseer, claimed the fare of Rs.5,940/- for transporting materials from Secunderabad to Mumbai.  Further, he claimed additional charges of Rs.1,600/- to deliver the Articles to the doorsteps of Consignee.  It is submitted, with no other way, the Complainant’s daughter was constrained to pay additional sum of Rs.1,600/- thus in all Complainant’s daughter paid a sum of Rs.7,600/-to Naseer in Mumbai.  The Complainant had incurred expenditure of Rs.11,184/- plus Rs.1,890/- plus Rs.7,600/- in all amounting to Rs.20,674/-. The Complainant tried to contact the Opposite Party but he is not available and is evading Complainant. The Complainant had suffered severe mental agony and lost much of his precious time in trying to contact Opposite Party and to track goods and his daughter Ms.Shilpa had also suffered severe hardship by not receiving the Articles in time and further trying to track the Articles in Mumbai.  The Opposite Party has given a clear cut assurance/promise to the Complainant that the Articles shall be delivered within five days at the doorsteps of Consignee but had failed to deliver its service as assured, which amounted to deficiency of service.  Though the Opposite Party delayed in delivering the Articles, but despite of collecting entire sum, claim additional sum from Consignee using unfair trade practice to making gain for self and causing inconvenience and loss to the Complainant.   Hence, this complaint.

3.   Even though notice was served on the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party fails to put their appearance, hence placed ex-parte. 

4. In support of the complainant, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence. The Complainant had filed written arguments.

5.      The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainant has proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Party?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainant is entitled?

6.     Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):- Affirmative

                POINT (2):- As per the final Order

REASONS

7.     POINT NO.1: On perusing the pleadings along with documents produced by the Complainant, it reveals that the Opposite Party is holding office in various places for shifting household belongings from one place to another.  The Complainant had approached Opposite Party for shifting of household Articles of his daughter from Bangalore to Mumbai.   The Opposite Party agreed to transport the Articles from Bangalore to Mumbai and assured that the Articles shall be delivered between four to five days.   The Opposite Party also assured that the Articles shall be delivered at the doorsteps of Consignee i.e., his daughter Smt.Shilpa Johar.  On 19.04.2015 the Opposite Party collected Articles from the Complainant.  The Complainant had paid Bill for Rs.11,184/- through cheque bearing No.160784 dt.19.04.2015 drawn on Vijaya Bank, Ganganagar, Branch, Bangalore.  It is supported by the consignment Note No.BNG943A758.  Though it was assured by the Opposite Party that the Articles shall be delivered within five days, but it was not. To substantiate this fact, the Complainant filed his affidavit.  In his sworn testimony, he had reiterated the same and also in support of his testimony, he produced Articles list, cash bill, money receipt and consignment note.  By looking into these documents, it clearly shows that the Complainant had paid charges for transport, the household Articles from Bangalore to his daughter’s place Mumbai.  The Complainant called Opposite Party several times.  Finally, the Opposite Party told that the materials have reached Secunderabad and instructed to contact No.09886992965.  The Complainant contacted said number.  The recipient of the call, though acknowledged the receipt of Articles, demanded further sum to shift the Articles from Secunderabad to Mumbai.  Since the Complainant’s daughter was in badly in need of Articles, he agreed to pay the transport charges from Secunderabad to Mumbai and Secunderabad person instructed Complainant to contact one Sri.Naseer at Mumbai. The Complainant contacted said Naseer, he told Complainant to collect materials from his place i.e., Varshi, Mumbai.  The Opposite Party had agreed to deliver the Articles at the door steps in Mumbai.  The Complainant’s daughter was forced to rush from Versova to Varshi and for that purpose she engaged the services of OLA Cab costing Rs.1,890/-.  It is supported by Invoice of OLA Cabs.  The said Naseer had claimed the fare of Rs.5,940/- for transporting materials from Secunderabad to Mumbai.  Further, the Opposite Party’s representative claimed additional charges of Rs.1,600/- to deliver the Articles to the doorsteps of Consignee.  No other way Complainant’s daughter was paid said charges.  It is also supported by the Invoice issued by the Opposite Party’s representative.  The Complainant had suffered severe mental agony and lost much of his precious time in trying to contact Opposite Party and to track goods.  The Opposite Party has agreed to deliver the Articles at the doorsteps of consignee but failed to deliver its service as assured.  Therefore, it is proper to accept the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party failed to deliver its service as assured.  To disbelieve the version of the Complainant nothing was on record.  Though the Opposite Party delayed in delivering the Articles, but despite of collecting entire sum claim additional sum from consignee using unfair trade practice.  Under these circumstances, it clearly shows that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and unfair trade practice.  Hence, this point is held in affirmative.

8. POINT No.2:- In view of the finding on point No.1, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed holding that there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. 

The Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.20,674/-to the Complainant.

The Opposite Party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the Complainant.

The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of this litigation to the Complainant.

The Opposite Party is granted 45 days’ time to comply this order.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this, 2^nd day of January 2017)

        MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant:

1. Sri.Sanjay Johar, who being Complainant has filed his affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Advocate for Complainant:

1. Copy of the Articles List, Cash Bill, Money Receipt and Consignment Note
2. Invoice of OLA cabs
3. Invoice of Naseer
4. Infant Movers and Packers of various web site

Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

                                    -NIL-

  List of documents filed by the Opposite Party:

                          -NIL-

 MEMBER                                               PRESIDENT