IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 21.08.2023 Date of hearing: 06.11.2025 Date of Decision: 05.01.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO. 425/2023 IN THE MATTER OF V. V. NATARAJAN S/O LATE SHRI V. N. VISVANATHAN R/O SREE MATHURA KRIPA, PLOT NO. 58 B. DOOR NO. 12C, BALAJI NAGAR II, ST.

VIRUGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600092.. (Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate)

…Appellant VERSUS M/S AGARWAL PACKERS AND MOVERS LTD.

THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR CORPORATE OFFICE (NEW DELHI):

AGARWAL MOVERS CENTER, WEDDING MALL, PLOT NO. 1, SARASWATI VIHAR PARWANA ROAD, PITAMPURA, DELHI, 110034.

(Through: Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS.BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. Manish Kumar and Mr. Shivendra Singh, counsel for the Appellant.

Ms.Arti, counsel for the Respondents PER :HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant the complainant was posted Chandigarh office and was being transferred to Chennai office in the month of April, 2022. complainant contact Op in May, 2022 for packing and transport of household goods from Chandigarh to Chennai. OP charged a sum of Rs. 1,16,750/- for relocation of household goods vide consignment no. GCPNK222300539 dated 30.05.2022.

The OP assured to the complainant that quality services would be provided to him with quality packing, punctuality, no damage, service with smile and complete satisfaction. It is alleged by the complainant that as per the commitment OP had to deliver the consignment on 05.06.2022 but unfortunately after the great hardship and huge follow-up OP delivered the consignment on 12.06.2022. It is alleged by the complainant that due to deficiency in service on the part of and had to face various dim corbert This act of OP squarely covered under the OP the complainant had to part with his household goods for a longer time deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

The present complaint case is on admission stage. As per the arrays of the parties the complainant resides at Virugambakkam, Chennai. The address of office of the OP mentioned in the arrays of parties is of Pritam Pura, Delhi. The complainant has placed on record the copy of the receipt issued by OP containing the address of booking office of OP Panchkula.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 31.03.2023, whereby it held as under:

“Perusal of the record shows that the address of OP mentioned in the arrays of parties at Pitampura does not contain any cause of action.

5. As per Section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 jurisdiction of the District Commission is as under:

Jurisdiction of the District Forum; (1) subject to other provision of this Act, the District Forum shall have the jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of goods and services and compensation, if any, claim (does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs).

(2) a complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limit of whose jurisdiction (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite party where there are more than one, at the time of institution of the complaint actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has branch office), or personally work for gain or (b) any of the opposite parties where there are more than one at the time of institution of complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or (carries on business or has branch office), or personally work for gain, provided that in such cases either the permission of the District Forum is given or the opposite parties who do not reside, or (carry on business or has branch office), or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institut