BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 455/2023 Filed on 12/09/2023

ORDER DATED: 16/10/2024

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party.  The opposite party accepted the notice on 19/10/2023.  After accepting the notice the opposite party failed to appear before this Commission and hence on 04/12/2023, the opposite party was called absent and set ex parte.
3. The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant approached the opposite party for shifting the packages from Thirupati to Thiruvananathapuram.  As demanded by the opposite party the complainant furnished a list to be shifted to Thiruvananthapuram to the opposite party along with the complainant’s email ID.  Subsequently the opposite party send a quotation for Rs.27,747/- including surcharge and documentation charges.  As the packages were kitchen utensils, small almirah, AC, small TV, fridge, folding sofa and bed, the complainant asked the opposite party to reduce the amount to Rs.20,000/-.  Initially the opposite party reduced the amount to Rs.22,000/- and later fixed it for Rs.20,000/- and promised to deliver the item within 4 - 5 days.  As the complainant was having an experience of collecting excess charge of Rs.5000/- being the labour cost and workers for the safe delivery, when the complainant engaged the opposite party 4 years back for shifting the articles, he insisted that such things should not be repeated and at that time the opposite party informed that it would not be happen this time.  Accordingly the complainant availed the service of Agarwal movers and packers who is the opposite party herein for shifting his articles from Thirupathi to Thiruvananthapuram.  Strangely after packing the item, the workers under the supervision of the opposite party demanded money from the complainant and the complainant was compel to pay Rs.3,000/- by cash to the workers.  This was against the promise made by the opposite party.  Even after 5 days the packages were not reached at the destination and the complainant has not received any updates from the opposite party with regard to the shifting of the packages.  After 7 days the complainant contacted the Chennai branch and they said that they have to deliver some emergency packages and the items of the complainant would be delivered within 2 days.  Though the complainant tried to contact the opposite party on several occasions, the opposite party even not attended the call until the items were delivered.  Again the labourers demanded Rs.3,000/- loading and unloading charges from the complainant, inspite of the fact that the complainant has paid loading and unloading charges to the opposite party, the complainant was force to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the labours for unloading articles. Moreover on the next day when the complainant unpacked the items, it is found that the steel almirah got damaged completely, and suitcase got torn, and a small rack was completely damaged.  When the complainant contacted the opposite party when the complainant contacted the opposite party by sending the pictures of damaged item, the supervisor of the opposite party gave few contact numbers and the mail ID to send the details along with the photos. But the response from the opposite party was very much disappointing. The complainant further submits that due to irresponsible attitude of the opposite party and their workers, the complainant and his family members have suffered mental strain and financial loss.  Due to the mental strain, the complainant’s father suffered from severe illness and the complainant was also taken to the hospital due to fever.  Though the complainant was also advised for a hospital admission by the doctor, he avoided the same as he was waiting for the parcel arranged through opposite party.  Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.  As the opposite party remained absent from this proceedings, there is no written version from the side of the opposite party.
4. Evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.P1 to P5 series from the side of the complainant.  The opposite party being declared ex parte, there is no affidavit or documents from the side of the opposite party.    
5. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

               on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3.  
4. Order as to cost?

6. Heard.  Perused affidavits, documents and connected records.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the 2^nd complainant sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P5 series were produced and marked.  Ext.P1 is the quotation submitted by the opposite party to the 1^st complainant for an amount of Rs.27,747/-.  Ext.P2 is the packing list prepared by the opposite party.  Ext.P3 is cash receipt issued by the GG Hospital for an amount of Rs.10,166/- infavour of the complainant.  Ext.P4 is the screen shot of the whats app messages between the complainant and the opposite party.  Ext.P5 series are the copies of the photographs of the damaged articles.  These documents marked as Ext.P1, P2, P4 and P5 proves the transaction between the complainant and the opposite party.  From the above discussion it is evident that the complainants have availed a service of the opposite party by paying consideration.  There is no evidence from the side of the opposite party to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant.  Hence the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.    By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Ext.P1 to P5 series documents, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing their case against the opposite party. From the available evidence before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. From the evidence it is also evident that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite party.  As the mental agony and financial loss was caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, we find that the opposite party is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In view of the above discussions and in the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite party, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant. 

In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of realization/remittance.

     A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 16^th day of October,  2024.

455/2023

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

5. COURT EXHIBIT:

                        NIL