BEFORE THE HON'BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, NAGPUR

COMPLAINT NO. _______ OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

Mrs. Sarala Pahuja,

W/O. Mr. _________ Pahuja,
Aged about ___ years, Occupation: Housewife,
Residing at Jantar Mantar, Kapil Nagar,
Nagpur, Maharashtra
...COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. GATI LIMITED,
Having its registered office at M. G. Road,
Secunderabad- 500 003

2. GATI LIMITED,
Having its branch Office at Central Avenue,
Nagpur, Maharashtra
...OPPONENTS

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

The Complainant named above most respectfully submits as under:

1. THAT the Complainant, Mrs. Sarala Pahuja, is a housewife residing at Jantar Mantar, Kapil
Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra. She is a "consumer" within the meaning of Section 2(7) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as she availed the services of the Opponents for consideration.

2. THAT the Opponent No. 1, GATI LIMITED, is a company registered under the Companies
Act, 1956, having its registered office at M. G. Road, Secunderabad- 500 003. The Opponent No.
1 is engaged in the business of transport and delivery of goods, claiming to deliver anything,
anywhere.

3. THAT the Opponent No. 2 is the branch office of the Opponent No. 1, located at Central
Avenue, Nagpur, Maharashtra, through which the Complainant availed the services.

4. THAT both Opponents are "service providers" within the meaning of Section 2(42) of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as they provide services of transportation and delivery of goods
for consideration.

5. THAT on 21.11.2022, the Complainant hired the services of the Opponents to deliver
household goods worth Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) from Nagpur to one Maira
Panjwani at Mall Road, Missouri, Uttrakhand.

6. THAT the Complainant dispatched the said goods through the Opponent No. 2's branch office
at Nagpur on 21.11.2022. In token thereof, the Opponents issued an Express Shipment Note
bearing No. A107197 to the Complainant, which serves as proof of the contract between the
parties.

7. THAT the Opponents charged Rs. 6,500/- (Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only) as
freight charges in advance. The payment of this amount is evidenced by the receipt issued by the
Opponent No. 2.

8. THAT at the time of booking the shipment, the Opponents assured the Complainant that the
goods would be delivered to the designated recipient, Maira Panjwani, within 3 days, i.e., by
24.11.2022.
9. THAT to the Complainant's utter dismay and shock, even after the expiry of more than 2
months from the date of shipment, the goods were not delivered to the designated recipient,
Maira Panjwani.

10. THAT the Complainant, concerned about the non-delivery of the goods, contacted the
Opponents several times via telephone during the months of December 2022 and January 2023.
However, the Opponents initially made empty promises of delivery and later began giving
evasive replies, thereby causing mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.

11. THAT after waiting for a further period of 1 to 2 months and observing the hostile and non-
cooperative attitude of the Opponents, the Complainant was compelled to engage the services of
a legal professional to issue a notice to the Opponents.

12. THAT on 01.04.2023, a legal notice was sent to the Opponent No. 2's branch office via
registered post with acknowledgment due. A copy of the same was also sent to the head office of
the Opponent No. 1. This notice detailed the Complainant's grievances and demanded the
immediate delivery of the goods or compensation for the same.

13. THAT while the Opponent No. 2's branch office failed to respond to the legal notice, thereby
showing utter disregard for the Complainant's rights, the Opponent No. 1's head office issued a
reply letter dated 25.04.2023.

14. THAT in the said reply letter dated 25.04.2023, the Opponent No. 1 demanded the original
invoices of the dispatched goods for claim settlement, instead of addressing the issue of non-
delivery of goods.

15. THAT the Complainant, in good faith and hoping for an amicable resolution, duly supplied
the requested original invoices to the Opponent No. 1's head office.

16. THAT subsequently, to the Complainant's shock and surprise, the Opponent No. 1's head
office, vide their communication, denied the Complainant's rightful claim of Rs. 40,000/- on the
frivolous pretext that the value of the shipment was not declared at the time of shipping.
17. THAT the Opponents, instead of taking responsibility for their failure to deliver the goods,
offered to pay only Rs. 10,000/- towards the settlement of the claim, which is grossly inadequate
and unjust.

18. THAT it is pertinent to mention that it was the duty of the Opponents, being experts in the
field of logistics and transportation, to inquire about and record the value of the shipment at the
time of booking. Their failure to do so cannot be used as an excuse to deny the Complainant's
rightful claim.

19. THAT the act of the Opponents in failing to deliver the goods within the promised time
frame, or at all, amounts to deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019, which defines deficiency as "any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in
the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under
any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in
pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service".

20. THAT the Opponents' failure to deliver the goods and their subsequent denial of full
compensation constitute unfair trade practice under Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection
Act, 2019, as it includes "adopting any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice" in the
provision of services.

21. THAT due to the aforementioned deficiency in service and unfair trade practices of the
Opponents, the Complainant has suffered not only financial loss but also immense mental agony,
physical discomfort, and wastage of time and energy.

22. THAT the cause of action for this complaint first arose on 24.11.2022 when the Opponents
failed to deliver the goods within the promised 3-day period. It arose again on 01.04.2023 when
the legal notice was issued to the Opponents due to their continued failure to deliver the goods.
The cause of action further arose on 25.04.2023 when the Opponents demanded additional
documents instead of addressing the non-delivery issue, and finally on the date when the
Opponents unjustly denied full compensation to the Complainant.

23. THAT this Hon'ble Commission has the territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain this
complaint as per Section 34(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as the Opponent No. 2
has a branch office within the local limits of this Commission where the Complainant availed the
service.
24. THAT this Hon'ble Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction to try and entertain this
complaint as the value of the goods and services in question falls within the prescribed limit
under Section 34(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

25. THAT the Complainant has paid the requisite complaint fee of Rs. ______/- as prescribed
under the Consumer Protection (Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions) Rules, 2020.

26. THAT the Complainant is filing the documents as per the list attached herewith and reserves
her right to file additional documents if needed during the course of the proceedings.

PRAYER:

In light of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, it is most humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to:

a) Declare that the Opponents have committed deficiency in service and indulged in unfair trade
practice;

b) Direct the Opponents, jointly and severally, to refund the full value of the goods, i.e., Rs.
40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) to the Complainant, along with interest @24% per
annum from 24.11.2022 till the date of actual payment;

c) Direct the Opponents, jointly and severally, to refund the freight charges of Rs. 6,500/-
(Rupees Six Thousand Five Hundred only) to the Complainant, along with interest @24% per
annum from 21.11.2022 till the date of actual payment;

d) Direct the Opponents, jointly and severally, to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh
only) to the Complainant as compensation for mental agony, physical discomfort, and time and
energy spent in the pursuit of this claim;

e) Direct the Opponents, jointly and severally, to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-
Five Thousand only) towards the legal expenses incurred by the Complainant;
f) Pass any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Commission deems fit and proper in the
interests of justice and equity.

Place: Nagpur
Date: [Current Date]

Complainant
Through Counsel

VERIFICATION:

I, Mrs. Sarala Pahuja, aged about ___ years, Occupation: Housewife, residing at Jantar Mantar,
Kapil Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra, do hereby verify and declare that the contents of the above
complaint paragraphs 1 to 26 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, based
on the records available with me. Nothing material has been concealed therefrom.

I further declare that the annexures attached to the complaint are true copies of their respective
originals.

Verified at Nagpur on this [day] of [month], 2023.

Complainant