Consumer disputes involving packers and movers are extremely common in India. However, many complaints never reach the stage of judgment because of procedural lapses. A recent example is the case of CC No.121/2024, Abhinav Kumar Paswan vs. Ultra Safe Movers & Packers, decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ranga Reddy.
This case is important because it shows how complaints can be closed even when the consumer has valid grievances—simply due to failure in providing correct details of the opposite party. It is a reminder that procedure is as important as merits.
Background of the Case
The complainant, Mr. Abhinav Kumar Paswan, filed a consumer complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. He accused Ultra Safe Movers & Packers of deficient service in transporting his goods and sought:
- Refund of ?64,015
- Compensation of ?2,00,000 for mental harassment
- Litigation costs
He produced multiple documents, including:
- Aadhar card
- Legal notice
- Postal tracking report
- Tax invoice
- WhatsApp conversations
- Payment details
- Claim letter
- Rental agreement
On the merits, this could have been a strong case. But the problem arose much earlier—at the stage of service of notice.
Why the Case Failed: Notice Could Not Be Served
1. First Hearing – 10 April 2024
The Commission issued a notice to the Movers & Packers company.
However, the postal department returned the notice marked:
“Insufficient address.”
This meant the address provided by the complainant was incomplete, incorrect, or non-deliverable.
2. Court Directed Complainant to Provide Correct Address
From 22 May 2024, the bench repeatedly asked the complainant to furnish a fresh, complete, servable address of the opposite party.
3. Ten Adjournments and One Full Year Given
Despite being granted 10 adjournments over a period of 12 months, the complainant:
- Did not submit any new address
- Did not request e-service through email
- Did not ask for substituted service (newspaper publication)
- Did not produce any valid alternative address of the company
4. Court Unable to Proceed
Under consumer law, the opposite party must be served notice before the case can be heard.
Without a valid address, the Commission has no jurisdiction to continue with the matter.
Therefore, the bench concluded:
“If the complaint is posted for some other day, no purpose will be served except postponement.”
Final Order of the Commission
On 29 April 2025, the Commission ordered:
The complaint is CLOSED due to failure of the complainant to furnish the correct address of the Opposite Party.
No refund.
No compensation.
No decision on merits.
This is a technical closure, not a dismissal based on evidence.
Legal Significance of This Case
This case illustrates a crucial aspect of consumer litigation:
1. The Court Cannot Proceed Without a Valid Address
Service of notice is mandatory. The court cannot legally pass orders against a party that has not been served.
2. Procedural Compliance is Essential
Even strong evidence becomes irrelevant if the opposite party cannot be notified.
3. Complainant’s Responsibility to Provide Address
It is not the court’s job to find the company’s address.
The complainant must provide:
- Registered office
- Branch office
- GST registration address
- Website-listed address
- Email for e-service
- Any verifiable contact information
4. Alternative Service Options Exist
If a company avoids notice, the complainant can request:
- Email service
- WhatsApp service
- Substituted service through newspaper publication
But none were pursued here.
Practical Lessons for Consumers
1. Always verify the company’s correct address before filing.
Use GST records, website details, invoices, or Google Business listings.
2. If notice returns undelivered, act immediately.
Provide a new address or request substituted service.
3. Don’t ignore court directions.
Repeated adjournments without action weaken the case.
4. File complaints against fraud packers & movers only after verifying company identity.
Many fraudulent movers operate with temporary mobile numbers and fake office locations.
Conclusion
The case of Abhinav Kumar Paswan vs. Ultra Safe Movers & Packers is a reminder that a consumer complaint can be closed not because the consumer is wrong, but because the basic procedural requirement of serving notice was not fulfilled.
Even if the consumer has a valid claim, the case cannot proceed unless the opposite party is properly brought before the Commission. Filing a complaint with correct and verifiable details is the first step toward winning any consumer case.