STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
(Additional Bench)
Appeal No. | : | 43 of 2024 |
Date of Institution | : | 25.01.2024 |
Date of Decision | : | 03.05.2024 |
Deepika Bhardwaj W/o Shri Hitanshu Bhalla r/o House No.203, Shivalik Enclave, NAC, Sector-13, Mani Majra, Chandigarh 160101
... Appellant.
Versus
- Ajio C/o Reliance Retail Limited S.S. Plaza, 74/2, outer Ring Road, 29th Main Road, BTM Ist Stage, BTM Layout, Bangalore 560068, Karnatka, India through its Managing Director.
- Reliance Retail Limited, The white Crow Reliance Brands Ltd., Unit No.161718, Ground floor, Lucknow UP-226010.
..... Respondents
Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against order dated 01.12.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.698/2022.
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER
Argued by: Ms.Raksha Raghav,Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Dhruv Mittal, Advocate for the respondents. .
PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.12.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the complaint in the following terms;
“ In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-
- to pay ₹1060/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of receiving the bill amount i.e. on 18.5.2022 till onwards.
- to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
- to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
2. Before the Ld. Lower Commission, it was case of the complainant/appellant that on 17.5.2022 she had purchased a Laptop Briefcase (TUMI Harrision Tower 13” Laptop Portfolio Briefcase size FS) through the official website of AJIO by way of their online portal. The price of the said briefcase was shown as Rs.38,000/- and after discount the complainant purchased the same for a sum of Rs.34,960/- vide bill Annexure C-1. The said briefcase was received by the complainant on 23.5.2022 and when she opened the delivery box, she was shocked to see the original MRP of the subject briefcase printed as Rs.33900/- on the tag Annexure C-2 and in this manner the complainant was duped and cheated by the OPs by way of getting extra amount than the actual MRP, which the OPs were not entitled to get. Thereafter the complainant tried to contact the OPs through toll free number but no response was received and also later on sent mail to the OPs on 30.6.2022 vide Annexure C-3 but no satisfactory response as regards to complaint was received. It was alleged that as the OPs have charged excessive amount than the actual MRP the complainant is entitled for refund of the amount alongwith interest. The price of the subject briefcase is still shown as Rs.38,000/- inclusive of all taxes on the website of the OPs and screenshot of the same is attached as Annexure C-4. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, a consumer complaint was filed before the Ld. Lower Commission.
3. Despite service of notice, Opposite Parties/respondents did not appear before the Ld. Lower Commission and suffered ex parte proceedings.
4. On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record by the complainant, the Ld. Lower Commission partly allowed the complaint, as indicated in the opening para of this order.
5. Still dissatisfied, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellant/complainant for modification of the impugned order by granting the relief(s) as claimed in the complaint.
6. We have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.
7. Through this appeal the appellant has prayed for award of an exemplary compensation of Rs.10.00 Lakhs on the ground that the respondents are one of the largest online platform for selling consumer goods in India including luxury goods and deal with lakhs of customers on daily basis. In support of her contention, Ld. Counsel for the appellant referred to a decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition No.2301 of 2016 decided on 12.10.2017 titled as Arindam Kar Versus Priprietor, Rupashi Cinema Hall. However, the facts of the cited case are distinguishable from the facts mentioned in the present appeal. Even otherwise, the Ld. Lower Commission has considered all these aspects while allowing refund of Rs.1060/-being excessive amount charged alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/- besides costs of Rs.5000/-. Thus, we are of the view that adequate compensation has already been granted by the Ld. Lower Commission.
8. . In view of the above, we find that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is based on correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point and does not suffer from illegality and perversity warranting any interference of this Commission.
9. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the Ld. Lower Commission is upheld.
10. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
11. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
