Haryana

Panchkula

CC/160/2020

JAGTINDER BIR SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

CAR AXIS INDIA LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

31 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA.

                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	160 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	22.06.2020
Date of Decision	:	31.08.2021

Jagtinder Bir Singh son of Sh. Satnam Singh, R/o 207B/B-3, Shiv Shakti Colony, Near HP Gas, Pinjore, Haryana, Pin-134102.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

Car Axis India Ltd., 15-9-3, Krishna Nagar, Maharanipeta, Vishakha- patnam, Andhra Pradesh.                                                                

….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:            Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties:    Complainant in person.  

                           OP already ex-parte vide order dated 10.03.2021.        

 

ORDER

(Dr. Sushma Garg, Member)

1.          The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant had placed an online order in the month of January, 2019 for the purchased of a Car Android Music System with 8” screen and DVD Player from online company Car Axis India Ltd. on its website caraxis.in for a cost price of Rs.27,000/- As per advertisement the OP has shown 8” Android. After receiving the above item through courier the same was installed by the complainant in his car. But during installation of the   said Android, the complainant found that Android was of 7” instead of 8” as a result the same could not be installed in the car. Moreover, Bluetooth of the system was also not working property. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OP on their phone no.7013534152 and after intimation, the OP asked the complainant to return the said Android with an assurance that the OP will provide 8” Android System with DVD Player to him. The complainant returned the system accordingly to the OP on 20.03.2019 through Blue Dot Courier vide cash receipt no.009621, spending Rs.2,288/-. Thereafter, the complainant received the system from the OP. On checking the system so received, it was found that though it was an 8” system but without DVD player. Further, the complainant again contacted the OP and explained the discrepancies in the system. To this the OP informed the complainant that they have only this model of system available with them. However, the OP asked to the complainant  to return the product and only then the OP will be able to refund the amount after receiving the system but the OP refused to own the liability to collect the product as well as courier charges spent by the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant had served a legal notice to the OP on dated nil. He received the reply dated nil from the OP and in that reply the OP has ignored all the bonafide issued relating to the system.  Due to the act and conduct of the OP amounts to deficiency in service on their part; hence, this complaint.

2.               Notice was issued to the OP through registered post (vide registered post No.RH453919502IN on 10.09.2020 to OP, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 10.03.2021.

3.               To prove his case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.               We have heard the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file minutely and carefully.

5.               In this complaint the complainant has alleged that he had purchased in the month of January 2019 an android music system of 8 inches screen along with DVD player for car from company ‘Car Axis India Ltd against Rs.27,000 through online system of payment. It has been further alleged that the product received by the complainant was not of required specifications as its screen was of smaller size having dimensions 7 inches instead of 8 inches as ordered by the complainant. The complainant returned the product for exchange with new one of the ordered specifications. However, second time the product received was not complete as it was lacking of DVD player. That the complainant had also to bear the expenses incurred on return of the product.
6.               The OP did not appear to contest the claim of the complaint for which adverse interference is liable to be drawn against it. The nonappearance of the OP despite notice shows that it has nothing to say in the defence against the allegation made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go uncontroverted and unrebutted.

7.               In view of the fact that the OP has neither responded to the notice nor it has opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OP had committed Deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as well as the affidavit in the support thereof.

8.               In view of the aforementioned factual position, this commission is of the considered opinion that the OP has failed to adhere to the terms of order placed by the complainant and in delivering the required defect free product to the complainant. We agree with the complainant that the expenses incurred upon return of the product should be borne by the OP. It is the liability of the OP to take back the product at its own expenses if the return happens due to the fault or defect in the product. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to relief.

9.               We accordingly direct the OP to refund the price of the product i.e. Rs.27,000/- of Car Android Music System with 8” Screen & DVD Player and the courier charges of Rs.2,288/- incurred on the return of the product alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization subject to submission of the product in question by the complainant. It is clarified that the OP shall collect the product in question at its own expenses from the complainant and no expenses are to be taken from the complainant incurred during the collection of the product from the complainant. Apart from above, the OP shall pay a lump sum amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, physical harassment and litigation expenses.

10.             The OP shall comply with the directions/orders within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on:31.08.2021

            Dr.Sushma Garg        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini            Satpal

                   Member                     Member                           President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                              Dr.Sushma Garg                                                                                       

                                               Member