DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

 Dated this the 28^th day of October 2024

Filed On: - 22.02.2023

PRESENT

Shri. D.B. Binu                                                                              Hon’ble President

Shri. V. Ramachandran                                                           Hon’ble Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                                                  Hon’ble Member

CC NO.129/2023

COMPLAINANT

Mohan Kumar V, S/o Viswnathan C, Flat 3E, MYS Highland Apartment, Choorakkottayimoola Road, Kollamkudimugal, Mundampalam, Kakkanad- 682 021, Mob: 9620385944

Vs

OPPOSITE PARTY

VRL  Cargo, Packer and Mover, Office Number 08, Anil HigHt Sector, 10A Airoli, Dmart Road, Navi Mumbai Airoli, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400 708 Name: Mr.Satish, Mobile Number: 8829025001, 8854871826, Email: info@vricargopackerandmover.com

FINAL ORDER

D.B. Binu, President

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

The complainant, who recently relocated from Mumbai to Kochi, hired VRL Cargo Packers and Movers on 17th January 2023 to transport household items and a two-wheeler (Honda Shine) for a quoted price of ₹23,000. The terms included 80% advance payment and 20% at delivery.

VRL Cargo collected the goods on 18th January 2023, but later issued a bill of ₹40,838. Rachna (contact: 8854871826) initially coordinated but stopped responding, passing communication to Mr. Satish (contact: 8829025001), who demanded full payment before delivery, despite the earlier agreement. Under pressure, the complainant paid ₹32,000 on 19th January and the remaining ₹8,838 on 20th January.

However, the goods were not delivered as promised. Instead, Satish transferred the items to Yogesh Cargo Movers (address: Natraj Chambers, Vashi, Mumbai) without informing the complainant, and both parties claimed non-payment from Satish. Yogesh Cargo demanded ₹20,000 to release the goods. Satish then stated his company was closed and refused to refund any amount.

Despite complaints to the Bank of Baroda and cyber police, no resolution has been achieved. The bank has issued a chargeback but requires a commission order to reverse the transaction. The complainant has submitted evidence, including WhatsApp chats and voice recordings.

The complainant seeks a refund of ₹40,838 and compensation of ₹10,000 for mental stress, financial loss, and inconvenience caused during the relocation. The complaint requests the commission’s intervention to issue an order to VRL Cargo’s bank (A/c: 50100348091787, IFSC: HDFC0002795) for processing the refund.

2. Notice:

The Commission sent notice to the opposite party, which was returned with the endorsement of the postal department as "not known " 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 five documents along with the complaint before the commission.

4. Points for Consideration:

i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by the opposite parties?

iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?

5. 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.

6. 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. We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above.

ORDER:

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

Dated this the 28^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 Parties’ Evidence

NIL

Date of Despatch

By Hand       ::

By post         ::

AKR/

Order in CC No. 129/2023

Date: 28/10/2024