ORDER       R.S. DAHIYA, PRESIDENT.
        Brief facts of the case are that the complainant placed order with the opposite party for purchase of Mobile phone handset online on 26.01.2016 and on 29.01.2016 after paying Rs.46,549/- in cash, the complainant received "Apple" mobile phone handset.  That the said Apple Mobile phone handset found defective and thus was returned back to the opposite party on 30.01.2016.  Thereafter, the complainant continuously requested to the opposite party through phone/mail etc. for refund  of  his  money  but  the  opposite  party  has not refunded the money  till  today.   That  the  complainant  had 
purchased   the   said  Mobile   handset  in  the  name   of  Sahil-
(complainant's nephew) minor- three years old; the opposite party is 
mis-guiding and giving wrong information about refund of payment; the complainant is suffering financial loss and is being harassed by the opposite party which is not refunding his money.  Hence, this complaint.
2.        After notice, Mr.Shamim Ahmad, Advocate appeared for M/s Akhil Modi & Associates andfiled Vakalatnama signed by Mr.Rahul Sundram and Mr.Shamim, Advocate and other associate on behalf of oppoiste party No.1 & 2 on 22.04.2016.  However, on 19.07.2016 a reply was filed by opposite party No.1 only and their counsel Mr.Shamim Ahmad gave a statement to the effect that he is not appearing on behalf of opposite party No.2 as he had no instructions from him.  However, the Forum in the interest of natural justice again issued a notice to opposite party No.2 through registered post for 26.08.2016 which was received back with a report of refusal and as such the opposite party No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.08.2016.
3.        In evidence, both the parties have adduced their respective affidavits.  Opposite party No.1 filed Annexure A and 
      Annexure B.  Besides the complainant has filed Ex.C1 purchase bill, Ex.C2 letter of customer service of opposite party, Ex.C3 another letter of customer service of opposite party, Mark-A is bill of return of shipment and Mark B receipt of handset returned to the opposite party.
4.        We have heard the arguments and have gone through the evidence produced by both the parties oral as well as documentary.  It is not disputed that the Mobile handset was purchased from the company of the opposite parties through opposite party No.2. The only contention on behalf of the opposite party is to the effect that they are 
not responsible    for    refund    of    the   money  of the rejected goods 
as they are not seller in the strict sense of word but they sell goods of 
various companies through website.  They also placed on record a document regarding condition of use of product sold by them.  This contention of the opposite party is not tenable.  It is amply clear that the product was sold by them through opposite party No.2 and same was also received back by opposite party No.2.  The money was received by opposite party No.2 as such the opposite parties are jointly responsible for the refund of the amount of rejected good.  The Company sells the goods of various products and they earn profit so, they are also liable to redress the deficiencies of goods sold by them.  The contention raised by the opposite parties are of no consequence.  
They sold the good, they received the payment and they received defunct good as such they are responsible to make the payment of a good which has been received by them as defunct.  
5.        The opposite party has also admitted to make the refund as is evident from the document placed on the file in the form of "Correspondence" from their "Customer Care Service" for expediting the refund.  In view of the above, the opposite party No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally responsible and they are directed to pay Rs.46,549/- to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 01.02.2016 till realisation.  The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation charges and Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt the copy of this order.
                     Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs.  
File be consigned to record room.  
Announced in open Court.
15.11.2016

                    
(Urmil Beniwal)      (Keeran Bala)            (Rajbir Singh Dahiya)
     (Member)              (Member)               President,
                                                         District Consumer Disputes 
                                                     Redressal Forum,Nuh.