| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 252 of 21.6.2016 Decided on: 22.3.2017 Gagandeep Singh Ranu S/o Sh.Sajjan Singh R/o H. No.5, New Lines Central Jail, Patiala …………...Complainant Versus Askme Bazaar.com Getit Stores Pvt .Ltd. GYS Heights, Plot-10 & 11 2nd & 3rd Floor Tower-C, Sector 125, Noida ( Gautam Budh Nagar) Uttar Pradesh, India-201301. …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Gagandeep Singh, complainant in person. Opposite Party ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant placed an online order for the purchase of a brand new Nokia/Microsoft 225 white colour mobile phone from OP for a total consideration amount of Rs.2899/- with COD I(cash on delivery) option. After confirmation of the order, OP sent the particulars of the courier company Blue Dart through which the ordered product would be sent but when the complainant checked the details on courier company’s website, it confirmed that there was no such order with it. The complainant decided to wait for some time. Thereafter on 17.5.2016, the complainant received a parcel from ‘another courier company’ Aromax.After paying the amount of Rs.2899/- to the delivery body, the parcel was opened but to the utter surprise of the complainant the phone came out to be of black colour, also the cover of parcel was of askmebazaar with inside box of Amazon with SnapDeal seal on it. The comaplainant lodged a complaint with the OP vide complaint No.QRC 960-78714 and OP told that it would pick up the wrong product with 4-6 working days and the refund would be processed with 10-12 working days. Meanwhile, the complainant also filed an on-line complaint vide ticket No.101772 on 17.5.2016 where he submitted the pictures of the mobile phone, delivery box and receipt alongwith the bank details for the purpose of refund. After waiting for 7 working days, the complainant again made a cellular contact with customer care of OP for which they replied asking the complainant to make online complaint. Thereafter, the OP sent an e-mail that it wanted slip of BLUE DART Courier Company with COD order No. mentioned on it, but the complainant replied that he was served the product through another courier company’ARAMAX’ receipt of which had been mailed to OP earlier. After waiting for 10-12 days, the complainant decided to use the phone, but to his utmost surprise, he found that the battery of the concerned phone was of 1000 MAH which the manufacturing company claimed to be of 1200 mah, also the microphone on the lower part of phone was not working due to which there was a great problem in making conversation with other people. Suddenly on 1.6.2016, the complainant received an SMS from OP stating that due to some seller issue, his recent COD order had been delayed so expect to receipt it shortly. But the complainant did not receive the product. This act of the OP amounted to deficiency in service on its part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act),1986t.
- On notice OP appeared through counsel but failed to file written version and was ultimately proceeded against exparte.
- In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant in person and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The complainant placed an order, online, for the purchase of a mobile phone on 11.5.2016. Ex.C1 dated 12.5.2016 is the confirmation of the order. The complainant received the parcel on 17.5.2016 and paid an amount of Rs.2899/-(COD) to the delivery boy. The OP had promised to send the product through BLUE DART courier company but it sent the product through ‘ARAMAX’ courier company.The complainant had ordered for ‘white colour’ mobile phone but on opening the box, he was surprised to see that the mobile phone was of Black Colour. On 17.5.2016, the complainant registered an online complaint with OP.Ex.C4 is the reply to the complaint made by the complainant on 17.5.2016 in which OP wrote that its team will pick up the product within 4-6 days and the refund will be processed within 10-12 days. Ex.C8 is the conversation between the complainant and the OP. On 1.6.2016, the complainant received a message vide Ex.C9, wherein the OP stated that the shipment of the product of the complainant has been delayed. After 10-15 days of receiving the product when the complainant decided to use the product, he found that there was problem in the mobile phone as the microphone on the lowerpart of the phone was not working. The OP failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other .The OPs act and conduct amounted to deficiency in service by not providing the product for which it was paid.
6. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainant with a direction to the OP to replace the product of the complainant with the one, the complainant ordered for and if that is not possible to refund an amount of Rs.2899/-, the same being the price of the mobile.OP is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as litigation cost. Order be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room. ANNOUNCED DATED:22.3.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
