The Hoshiarpur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Punjab has penalised Sri Satya Packers and Movers for deficient service and unfair trade practices after the firm failed to return Rs 26,080 in duplicate payments to a customer.
The two-member bench, consisting of Commission President Naveen Puri and member Prem Singh Salaria, directed the relocation company to return the principal balance of Rs 26,080 along with 9 per cent annual interest calculated from the filing date of March 20, 2025, until full recovery. The commission also ordered the business to pay Rs 10,000 in consolidated compensation for mental agony, harassment, and inconvenience. The company has been given 45 days from receiving a certified copy of the order to fulfill the directives.
Duplicate Transfer Triggered Financial Dispute
The case originated from a household goods transportation order from Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, to Hoshiarpur, Punjab. On February 15, 2024, Sri Satya Packers and Movers issued an invoice for Rs 66,080, which the customer, Vikalp Singh, initially settled through a combination of cash and a friend’s UPI account.
Because Singh required a single UPI transaction statement from his own bank account to claim an employment reimbursement, he made an arrangement with company representative Rajeev Dubey. On March 21, 2024, Singh transferred the full Rs 66,080 via UPI from his account under an agreement that the previous payment would be returned promptly.
Movers Failed To Return Remaining Balance
Following the second transaction, the moving company returned only Rs 40,000, retaining an unreturned balance of Rs 26,080. Despite multiple reminders and a legal notice issued on September 14, 2024, the company refused to refund the remaining sum, prompting Singh to file a complaint with the consumer commission in March 2025.
Sri Satya Packers and Movers failed to appear before the commission or submit a written defense within the statutory timeline. As a result, the panel heard the proceedings unilaterally.
Unchallenged Evidence Confirms Unfair Practice
In its decision delivered on July 8, the panel noted that Singh’s documentary evidence—including the original invoice, UPI transaction records, bank account statements, postal tracking slips, legal notice, and a sworn affidavit—remained legally unchallenged due to the opposite party’s absence.
The bench ruled that holding onto a client’s funds without legal justification constitutes both an unfair trade practice and a service deficiency.
While Singh had requested Rs 10 lakh in compensation and Rs 25,000 for legal expenses, the commission rejected those figures as excessive and out of proportion to the transaction value. The panel explained that consumer forums serve to rectify actual loss and distress rather than provide windfall gains, leading to the adjusted financial remedy.
