DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

Dated this the 29^th  day of October , 2024

                                                                  Filed On: 27.07.2023

PRESENT

Shri. D.B. Binu                                                                               Hon’ble President

Shri. V. Ramachandran                                                                          Hon’ble Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                                                     Hon’ble Member

C.C. No. 490 OF 2023

COMPLAINANT
P. Anand Kumar, S/o Mr. N. Unnikrishnan, D+2/3, Savitri Vihar Colony, Jindal Saw Ltd, Samaghogha Mundra, Kutch (Dt), Pin- 370415, Gujarat.

Vs

OPPOSITE PARTY

Sunil, #12, Nelson Mandela Residents Association, Near Pethcity Church, Kalamassery, Kochi, Kerala-683501.

FINAL ORDER

D.B. Binu, President

1.A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant a resident of Palakkad, Kerala, currently working in Mundra, Gujarat, engaged the services of Andaman Logistics Packers and Movers through its representative, Mr. Sunil, for the transportation of his Alto car (Registration No. KL09 W 1397) from Palakkad to Mundra. The initial quotation provided on May 24, 2023, was for ₹15,000.

However, on June 2, 2023, Mr Sunil informed the complainant that the vehicle had reached Ahmedabad. At this point, Mr Sunil demanded an increased payment of ₹29,653, significantly higher than the initially agreed amount. Additionally, he insisted on receiving the entire amount as advance payment before delivering the car.

When the complainant questioned the unjustified increase, Mr Sunil stated that this was the usual practice and refused to release the vehicle without full payment. Despite the initial agreement, the opposite party altered the terms arbitrarily, leaving the complainant with no choice but to pay the inflated charges.

The complainant alleges that this behaviour amounts to unfair trade practices and fraud, as the logistic provider unilaterally increased the agreed price after the service commenced. The complainant is seeking appropriate legal action to address the misconduct of the opposite party and to prevent such fraudulent practices by logistics service providers.

2. Notice:

The Commission sent notice to the opposite party, which was returned with the endorsement of the postal department as "Insufficient address “The complainant was informed to furnish the correct addresses of the opposite party but failed to respond or provide the correct addresses.

3. Evidence

The complainant did not file a proof affidavit but produced four documents along with the complaint before the commission.

4.  Legal Analysis and Observations:

The principle of "Audi Alteram Partem" (hear the other side) mandates that each party be given a fair opportunity to present their case. In this context, the Commission's request for the correct addresses of the opposite party aligns with the principles of natural justice, ensuring that the opposite party is properly notified and given a chance to present their side.

5. Deficiency in Service and Negligence:

Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines "deficiency" as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance that is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force.

However, the continuous absence of the complainant and failure to submit the correct addresses of the opposite party indicate a lack of interest in pursuing the case. The complainant's absence from 14.08.2023 to 10.10.2024, and repeated failure to attend subsequent hearings, further supports this observation.

Conclusion:

In view of the continuous absence of the complainant and the failure to submit the correct addresses of the opposite party, it is evident that the complainant has shown a lack of interest in pursuing the case. Despite multiple opportunities, the complainant has neither provided the necessary correct addresses of the opposite party nor made further appearances to take alternative steps before the Commission, showing a lack of interest in advancing the case.

ORDER:

Consequently, this complaint is hereby dismissed due to the complainant's non-compliance. No cost.

Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 29^th  day of October 2024

Sd/-

D.B. Binu, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order,

                                                                            Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE

NIL

OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE

NIL

Date of Despatch

By Hand       ::

By post         ::

AKR/

Order in CC No. 490/2023

Date: 29/10/2024