BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR
C.C NO-01/2020
Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Smita Tripathy, Member (W).
Bighneswar Kumar Shroff, aged about 35 years,
S/O-Yugal Kishore Prasad Shroff,
R/O-At-Sunaripara,Barabazaar,
P.O-Khetrajpur,Dist-Sambalpur,Odisha,
Mob-9178403910. …….Complainant
Vrs.
1. M/S Homeshop 18,
7 th Floor,FC-24,Sector-16-A,
Film City,Noida-201301,
Uttar Pradesh,India.
2. The Managing Director,
Homeshop 18,
7 th Floor,FC-24,Sector-16-A,
Film City,Noida-201301,
Uttar Pradesh,India.
3. The CEO,
Homeshop 18,
7 th Floor,FC-24,Sector-16-A,
Film City,Noida-201301,
Uttar Pradesh,India. …….O.Ps
For the Complainant:-Nemo
For the O.P-1& 2:None.
DATE OF HEARING : 17.02.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 22.02.2021
DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT-Brief facts of the case is that, on dtd. 18.12.2018, the Complainant has ordered a set of five printed Double Bed Fleece Blanket manufactured by Warmland and the same was delivered as per the address of the Complainant. He paid Rs.1,200/- when he received the parcel, as the payment was basing on Cash on Delivery. On opening the said parcel he found that the quality of the product delivered was very poor and defective. The Complainant informed the matter to the O.P-1 who picked up the same through their distribution agent and again delivered sub-standard and defective product and the process was repeating. For the last time the defective product was picked up by the O.P-1 from the residence of the complainant on dtd.17.02.2019 and a message was received on his mobile from AD-HMSHOP regarding the refund of the amount of Rs.1,200/- vide order no- 1029273301 which is valid till dtd.12.02.2020 and the refund shall be redeemed in the next purchase in the guise of coupon. On dtd. 21.10.2019 the Complainant made a request on the mail ID- of the O.P-1 to refund the amount of Rs.1,200/-. But the O.P-1 made contact with the Complainant over telephone and tried to convince him to purchase any other item/product against the same amount but the Complainant denied the same. On dtd.25.10.2019 the O.P-1 requested the Complainant to send his bank account details to initiate the refund in to the account and assured to make the payment within 7-8 days but in vain. The Complainant approached the O.P-1 to refund the amount within 15 days failing which he shall be compelled to take shelter of the proper Court of Law but he remained silent over the matter. The O.P-2 & 3 are made party in this case as they are the administrative officers of the O.P-1. For the above the Complainant filed this petition to get certain reliefs from this Commission. The case was admitted and notice was issued from this Commission but they were returned unserved to this Office with a remark “Addressee Left”. But on verification of the website of the O.P-1, it found that the address was not changed. So the Complainant presumes that the O.Ps are knowingly and deliberately avoided to receive the notices issued by this Commission to get escape from their liabilities and Court proceedings.
POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-
- whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act,2019?
- whether the Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
- whether the O.Ps has committed any Unfair Trade Practice to the Complainant?
From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumer of the O.Ps as he has purchased a set of blanket from the O.Ps and paid the price of the product through Cash on Delivery. Secondly, now we come to the main point as to whether the OPs have committed unfair trade practice in selling the defective products to the Complainant and not replacing them. In this regard, the contention of the Complainant is that the goods supplied to him were defective and that he contacted the OPs for replacing the goods but they did not do anything. The OPs have taken the stand that they compelled the Complainant the to purchase some other article instead of refund the amount is amounts to unfair trade practice on their part and the OPs were not in a position to replace the goods so indirectly. The Complainant has filed his affidavit in support of his contention that the goods were defective ones and that the OPs did not replace them. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record and the contention of the Ops, it is concluded that the OPs supplied defective goods to the Complainant. All this goes to show that the OPs were not serious about the replacement of goods/refund of money taken against the goods and therefore they have certainly committed unfair trade practice in selling out the defective products and not replacing them, therefore the Complainant is entitled to get the goods replaced by the Ops or refund the money. This matter has been well settled in the case of Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Love Kumar Sahu & Anr. on 23 May, 2018 decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, CHHATTISGARH,PANDRI, RAIPUR (C.G). As he also appears to have been harassed in this regard, hence he is entitled to get compensation and also cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to replace the goods in place of the old ones to be taken from the Complainant at the time of delivery of the new products or refund the amount Rs1,200/-. In case they are not able to do so then the OPs will pay Rs.8,000.00(Rupees Eight Thousand Only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant. The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.2,000.00 (Rupees Two Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
Office is directed to supply the free copies of the order to the parties receiving acknowledgement of the delivery of thereof.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e. 22nd day of February, 2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.
I agree,
-Sd/- -Sd/-
MEMBER(W). PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
-Sd/-
PRESIDENT.
