Date of Filing:26.07.2021

Date of Disposal:13.04.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SRI RAMACHANDRA.M.S,  PRESIDENT

1. The complainant files a complaint with this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act of 2019 with a direction to OP to repay a sum of  Rs.30,000/- along with interest at 18% p.a. and pay Rs.2,00,000/- for damages, Rs.50,000/- for legal expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards damages to the car and Rs.45,000/- for moving the car from Bengaluru to Assam  and such other reliefs.

2.   The following are the complaint's key facts: 

The complainant has contended that the OP are the packers and movers and enterprises involved in the business of shifting goods from one place to another place. The complainant as she has moved from Bengaluru to Assam and as she wanted to transport her belongings from Bengaluru to Assam, she hired service of the OP to shift the Hyundai i20 Car bearing no.KA-51-MM-0843. The complainant approached the OP to transport her car from Bengaluru to Assam and accordingly, the OP accepted the same.On 29.06.2020, the OP visited the complainant’s house and supplied quotation for packing and moving her car from Bengaluru to Assam. It is also agreed between both of them, that the OP-1 gave quotation for a sum of Rs.30,000/- for shifting the car from Bengaluru to Assam and as per the demand of the OP, the complainant has to pay 80% of the quotation charges initially and rest of 20% will be paid at the time of delivery of the car at Assam. As sought the complainant has paid a sum of
Rs.24,000/- to OP-1 through Google pay account and after receiving the same, the OP also issued receipt for the same. Thereafter OP-2 & 3 have pick up the complainant’s car on 29.06.2020 and as per their assurance they were supposed to load the complainant car in a carrieron the very next day i.e. on 30.06.2020.

3. It is the case of the complainant that on 30.06.2020 when the complainant called OP-1 and enquired where her car has been loaded to the carrier and she asked for the details of carrier. In reply to the complainant enquiry the OP has  changed  their stance and demanded the complainant  that she has to pay an additional sum of Rs.15,000/-  to shift the car.  After much negotiations between them  the complainant was forced to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- on 02.07.2020 through Google pay account. Despite of the same, the OP does not shifted the complainant car and they have failed to comply the agreed terms and conditions of the contract between them. As a result, the complainant filed police complaint to jurisdictional police on 07.07.2020, wherein the OP has brought the complainant car to the police station on 07.09.2020. Despite of the directions from the police, the OP neither transport the car nor refund the amount received by them.  Thereafter complainant was forced to transport the said car  by other modes by complainant by incurring additional expenses of Rs.45,000/-. Subsequently despite of all efforts the OP failed to refund the said amount. By maintaining the present complaint the complainant sought for the relief of refund of the said amount along with other reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

4. Notice to OP-1,2 & 3 duly served, by remaining absent they have placed ex-parte.

5.  The complainant filed chief-examination affidavit along with relevant in support of his contention.

6.  Heard arguments. The matter is reserved for order.

7.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
2. What order?

8. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1                :       Affirmative

Point No.2                :       As per final order

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1:-  The complainant filed chief examination affidavit by re-producing the complaint averments as well as allegations as against OPs. In the affidavit the complainant has contended that the OP are the packers and movers and enterprises involved in the business of shifting goods one place to another place. The complainant as she has moved from Bengaluru to Assam and as she wanted to transport her belongings from Bengaluru to Assam, she hired the service of the OP to shift the Hyundai  i20 Car bearing no.KA-51-MM-0843. The complainant approached the OP to transport her car from Bengaluru to Assam and accordingly, the OP accepted the same. On 29.06.2020, the OP visited the complainant’s house and supplied quotation for packing and moving her car from Bengaluru to Assam. It is also agreed between both of them that the OP-1 gave quotation for a sum of Rs.30,000/- for shifting the car from Bengaluru to Assam and as per the demand of the OP the complainant has to pay 80% of the quotation charges initially and rest of 20% will be paid at the time of delivery of the car at Assam. As sought the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.24,000/- to OP-1 through Google pay account and after receiving the same the OP also issued receipt for the same. Thereafter OP-2 & 3 have pick up the complainant’s car on 29.06.2020 and as per their assurance they were supposed to load the complainant car in  a carrier  on the very next day i.e. on 30.06.2020.

10. It is the case of the complainant that on 30.06.2020 when the complainant  called OP-1 and enquired where her car has been loaded to the carrier and she asked for the details of carrier. In reply to the complainant enquiry the OP has changed  their stance and demanded the complainant  that she has to pay an additional sum of Rs.15,000/-  to shift the car.  After much negotiations between them  the complainant was forced to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- on 02.07.2020 through Google pay account. Despite of the same, the OP does not shifted the complainant car and they have failed to comply the agreed terms and conditions of the contract between them. As a result the complainant filed police complaint to jurisdictional police on 07.07.2020, wherein the OP has brought the complainant car to the police station on 07.09.2020. Despite of the directions from the police, the OP neither transport the car nor refund the amount received by them.  Thereafter complainant was forced to transport the said car  by other mode by complainant by incurring additional expenses of Rs.45,000/-. Subsequently, despite of  all efforts the OP failed to refund the said amount. By maintaining the present complaint the complainant sought for the relief of refund of the said amount along with other reliefs as prayed in the complaint.

11. It is observed that the Hon’ble National consumer commission, New Delhi, in the case between Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual V/s Dr.Nishi Gupta, which is reported in CPR 2018(1) page 325. In this case the Hon’ble National commission held that “non filing of written version in the complaint which amount to admission of complaint allegations”.

12. The guidelines of the above rule aptly applicable to the case as the OP by remaining absent, they have placed ex-parte in the complaint. In the absence of the version, affidavit from their side what ever the complaint allegations is to be held as true facts. On this legal inference can be drawn in favour of the complainant as against OP, that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

13. On perusal of the affidavit and also by examining the annexure documents produced in the complaint, it is crystal clear that the complainant has availed service of transport of goods and other items along with her car from Bengaluru to Assam. By agreeing to  render the service of the same, the OP has enter into the agreement of contract  with the complainant to shift the said car from Bengaluru to Assam. As per quotation the OP  has agreed to render  the services for a total sum of Rs.30,000/- and from the production of annexure documents-1,2,3,4,5 and 6  the complainant averments is supported by relevant documents. On examination of these annexure documents, it is found that the OP has received a sum of Rs.24,000/- + Rs.6,000/- in order to transport the said car from Bengaluru to Assam. Despite of receipt of the said amount, when the OP failed to render the agreed service. The complainant was forced to file the police complaint as per annexure-2. The quotation which was supplied by the OP as annexure document-3 and annexure document-5 is the copy of call details/records pertaining to the said transaction. From the perusal of the documents it is crystal clear that what ever the complaint allegations which is made as against OP is to be held as proved  facts beyond reasonable doubt. The OP has committed the deficiency  of service to the complainant during the course of said transaction. Being a service provider the OP has clearly violated the terms and conditions between the parties as agreed between them. In the light of the conduct of the OP, it is held that the OP has committed deficiency of service on their part, for which they are liable to refund pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-  along with other reliefs as granted in the complaint. In view of the above discussion, the Point No.1 we answer Partly in Affirmative.

14. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

                             ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part.

2. The OPs are jointly and severally  directed to refund Rs.30,000/- along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of payment  till refund is made  to the complainant.

3. The OPs are jointly and severally  further directed to pay a sum of  Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges. If the OP fails to comply the order within 45 days from the date of order, compensation amount and cost of litigation shall  carry interest at 6% p.a. for non-compliance of the order.

4. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties. 

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 13^th April 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

       (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

                 MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Dr.Runa Layla-who being the complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP by way of affidavit: Nil

Documents produced by the OP: Nil

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*