Complaint Case No. CC/5/2021 | ( Date of Filing : 06 Jan 2021 ) |
| | 1. Talakkottur R David | TC 34-671-1,Kadakampalli,Trivandrum |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
Versus | 1. Ajith Kumar | kuzhakktuvila veedu,,mariyankara,parasala,Trivandrum |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
Final Order / Judgement | BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT SRI. P.V. JAYARAJAN | : | PRESIDENT | SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR | : | MEMBER | SRI. VIJU V.R. | : | MEMBER |
C.C.No.05/2021 Filed on 06.01.2021 ORDER DATED: 30.07.2021 Complainant: | Talakkottur R. David, Pro se, T.C.34-671-1, G.V. Raja Road, Village of Kadakampalli, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 007, Kerala State, India |
(Party in person) Opposite party: 1. | Ajith Kumar, Kuzhakktuvilla Veedu, Muriyankara Parassala, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 502 |
(Declared Ex parte) ORDER SRI. P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT: - This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration and the commission passed an order as follows:
- The gist of the complaint is that the complainant was approached by the opposite party claimed to be the manufacturer of hand bags and provided him with samples and in pursuant to that the complainant placed an order for 2000 pieces of bags and paid an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party through online from the complainant’s account in Bank of India by using Google Pay mode of payment. The said payment was acknowledged by the opposite party on the same day by phone. The complainant has received only 30 pieces of bags that too of a small sized, as opposed to larger size bags for which the complainant placed order with the opposite party. When this was informed to the opposite party, he promised that he will make arrangements to deliver larger sized bags as ordered by the complainant, but failed to do so and refused to refund the money already paid to him. Though the complainant tried to contact the opposite party over phone on numerous occasions, the opposite party refused to accept the phone calls. The complainant was continuously demanding the repayment of the amount paid by him to the opposite party for the last several months. At last, the opposite party refunded Rs.20,000/- to the complainant saying that he has got some financial problems and promised to pay the balance amount. As the opposite party failed to repay the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- as demanded by the complainant, the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached this commission for refund of Rs.22,850/- being the balance amount after deducting Rs.7,150/- being the cost of mailing the samples from the total amount of Rs.30,000/-
- Though the notice issued by this commission was accepted by the opposite party, he failed to enter appearance on the date fixed for his appearance. Hence on 10.02.2021 the name of opposite party was called and he was set ex parte. Subsequently, the complainant filed affidavit and the documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A4.
- The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A4 on the side of the complainant and the opposite party not entered appearance and no evidence or documents put forth on the side of the opposite parties.
Issues to be considered: - Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief claimed in the complaint? iii) Order as to cost. - Issue nos. 1 and 2 are considered together for the sake of convenience. Complainant was approached by the opposite party claimed to be the manufacturer of hand bags and provided him with samples and in pursuant to that the complainant placed an order for 2000 pieces of bags and paid an advance amount of Rs.50,000/- to the opposite party. The said payment was acknowledged by the opposite party on the same day by phone. The complainant has received only 30 pieces of bags that too of a small sized as against the order placed by the complainant for larger size bags. The Opposite party neither delivered the bags nor repaid the amount paid by the complainant. As a result of frequent and repeated requests and demands from the complainant, the opposite party refunded Rs.20,000/- to the complainant saying that he has got some financial problems and promised to pay the balance amount. As the opposite party failed to repay the balance amount of Rs.30,000/- as demanded by the complainant, the same amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complainant approached this commission for the redressal of his grievance.
- To substantiate his case, the complainant himself was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A4 were marked. There is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite party. In the above circumstances we accept the case put forward by the complainant. By examining himself as PW1 and producing Exts.A1 to A4, the complainant succeeded in establishing his case. From the evidence before this commission, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence issue nos. 1 and 2 are found in favour of the complainant and against the opposite party.
- It is came in evidence that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Hence the opposite party is liable to refund the amount claimed by the complainant.
- In the result the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.22,850/-(Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty) with 6% interest from 11.05.2020 (the date of payment made by the complainant to the opposite party) along with Rs.2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred) being the cost of this proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry interest @9% from the date of order till the date of realisation.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 30th day of July, 2021. P.V. JAYARAJAN | : | Sd/- PRESIDENT | PREETHA G. NAIR | : | Sd/- MEMBER | VIJU V.R. | : | Sd/- MEMBER |
C.C. No. 05/2021 APPENDIX - COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
PW 1 | - | Talakkottur R. David |
- COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
A1 | - | Copy of NEFT transfer to opposite party dated 11.05.2020 | A2 | - | Copy of refund to complainant dated 31.10.2020 | A3 | - | Copy of DTDC Express invoice | A4 | - | Copy of e-mail messages |
- OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
- OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
- COURT EXHIBIT
NIL Sd/- PRESIDENT -
| |