By. Sri. A. S. Subhagan, Member:-
This is a complaint filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Facts of the case in brief:- Opposite Party is the authorized seller of Woodland shoes/boots. The complainant placed an order for purchasing Woodland D Navy M27 trucking boots on 11.10.2023 through its E-store (Order No.QR-3118528) as cash on delivery. The Opposite Party delivered the product on 19.10.2023, after payment of Rs.4,295/- and the Opposite Party had issued a Tax Invoice for the same. On verification, it was seen that the product was not fit for the Complainant which was small in size. Hence, the Complainant placed a return request on the very next day itself ie on 20.10.2023 through Email. But till date the Opposite Party has neither picked up the product and replaced it nor returned the price of the product. The Complainant had made return request to the Opposite Party through Email and phone messages several times within 15 days of purchase. The act of the Opposite Party is deficiency in service/unfair trade practice. Hence, the Opposite Party is liable to pay compensation to the Complainant for the loss and damages sustained to him. Hence, it is prayed to direct the Opposite Party
- To refund Rs.4,295/- with 10% interest from 20.10.2023.
- to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and
- To pay the cost of the complaint
3. Summons was served upon Opposite Party but they failed to appear before this Commission and to contest the case. Hence the Opposite Party was set ex-parte.
4. The Complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext.A1 and A2 series of documents were marked from his side. Oral evidence was also adduced by him. In cross-examination the Complainant reiterated all his allegations which had been placed in the complaint. Ext.A1 Invoice shows that the Complainant had purchased the product mentioned in the complaint paying Rs.4,295/-. As the size of the boot was not fit to the Complainant he had made repeated requests to the Opposite Party for its replacement or for refund of the price of the product which is evident from the Ext.A2 series of documents. The communications made by the Complainant were not responded by the Opposite Parties. They have neither replaced the boot nor refunded the price of the boot. This act from the part of the Opposite Party is nothing but deficiency in service/unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party had the opportunity to appear before the Commission and to contest the case. As they were ex-parte, Commission has no other way than to believe and accept the allegations of the Complainant. Therefore, deficiency in service/unfair trade practice is proved on the part of the Opposite Party for which they are liable to compensate the Complainant.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed
- To refund Rs.4,295/- (Rupees Four Thousand Two Hundred and Ninety Five Only) together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this complaint
- To pay an amount of Rs.8,500/- (Rupees Eight Thousand and Five Hundred Only) as compensation and
- To pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only) as cost of this complaint.
The above amounts shall be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the above amounts will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this Order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 19th day of September 2024.
Date of Filing:-08.04.2024.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Nithin. V. S. Fabrication Work.
Witness for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Tax Invoice. Dt:13.10.2023
A2(Series). Copy of Email Communications (6 Numbers).
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
