A consumer court in Kerala has ordered a Haryana-based packing and moving company to pay Rs 58,450 in compensation and refunds after it failed to deliver a customer’s household belongings shipped from Delhi.
The Kannur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that India Shifting Solutions Pvt Ltd was liable for a deficiency in service. The firm did not respond to two official notices from the commission, leading the panel to decide the case ex parte.
Under the June 30 order, the commission directed the company to refund Rs 38,450 to the complainant, Nithin T A, representing the total value of the lost goods. This includes a bicycle valued at Rs 32,000 and other electrical and electronic appliances. Additionally, the commission ordered the company to pay Rs 15,000 in compensation for service deficiency and Rs 5,000 to cover litigation costs. All payments must be cleared within one month.
Disputed Charges And Unfulfilled Promises
The dispute began when Nithin hired the packer to transport several self-packed items, including his bicycle, a vacuum cleaner, a mixer grinder, and other electrical equipment, from Delhi to Kannur.
According to the complaint, the moving company initially estimated the transportation cost at Rs 2,700, excluding taxes and insurance. However, two days later, the company issued a significantly higher bill of Rs 6,900. Following negotiations, both parties agreed on a revised fee of Rs 5,300, which the complainant paid via GPay.
Although the firm assured Nithin that his belongings would arrive within four days, the consignment was never delivered. The customer filed a formal complaint after the company stopped answering his phone calls.
Commission Findings And Ex Parte Decision
The three-member commission, comprising President Ravi Susha and members Moly Kutty Mathew and Sajeesh K P, reviewed the transaction records, payment receipts, invoices, and the complainant’s affidavit.
The panel stated that because the packer failed to appear in court or contest the claims, the allegations stood unchallenged. Based on the documented evidence, the commission concluded that there was a clear failure to perform the agreed-upon service, entitling the consumer to full relief.
