DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 15th day of September 2023.
Filed on: 08/12/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C.No.485/2021
COMPLAINANT
JJ Dents is represented by its Proprietor Jacob Joseph, Appackal Building. Thankalam, Kothamangalam, Ernakulam, Pin-686 692.
(By Adv.Naveen Thomas, E-2 EGRA, Nettikkaden, M.A.Sajeev Road, Edappally Toll, Cochin-682 024)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Deccan Dental Depot Pvt Ltd, Represented by its Managing Director, #23, 24 Sri Rama Towers, Bogut Kunta, Tilak Road, Abids. Hyderabad, Telangana, Pin-500 001, India.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1). A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant operates a dental products business named "J J Dents," detailed the issue wherein they had ordered Metal trimmers from the opposite party on March 3, 2021. The complainant paid a total of Rs 3,456/- on March 6, 2021, which included taxes and delivery fees. The opposite party assured timely delivery, specifically within a week due to the complainant's urgent need for the products.
However, the opposite party failed to deliver the products on time, despite the complainant's payment. When the complainant inquired about the delay, the opposite party offered excuses, stating issues the festival celebration etc etc. The opposite party eventually acknowledged the delay but didn't take any substantial action to rectify the situation. As a consequence, the complainant suffered losses, both financially (Rs 10,000/-) and reputation-wise, as they couldn't fulfil obligations with the Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Science, leading to a loss of goodwill in the market.
The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party on April 1, 2021, requesting a refund of the paid amount and additional compensation of Rs 10,000/- for the incurred loss. Despite receiving the legal notice on April 3, 2021, the opposite party did not respond or address the matter. The complainant claimed that the opposite party's actions constituted unfair trade practices, service deficiencies, a breach of trust and contract, and serious legal violations, causing significant mental distress.
The complainant has approached the Commission seeking a directive instructing the opposite party to refund the payment of Rs 3,456/-, including interest from March 6, 2021, along with compensation amounting to Rs 10,000/- to address the complainant's losses and an additional payment of Rs 30,000/- to account for further damages and distress experienced.
2) Notice
The commission sent a notice to the opposite party. However, despite accepting the notices, the opposite party did not file a version, resulting in the opposite party being set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 4 documents that was marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A-4.
- Exhibit A1: A true copy of the bank transaction showing the payment of Rs 3,456 made by the complainant to the opposite party on 6-03-2021.
- Exhibit A2: A true copy of a lawyer's notice dated 01/04/2021 issued on behalf of the complainant, demanding the return of the payment of Rs 3,456 and an additional Rs 10,000 within 15 days from receipt of the notice.
- Exhibit A3: The original postal receipt dated 1-04-2021 for the issuance of Exhibit A2 notice.
- Exhibit A4: A true copy of a print downloaded from the Department of Post's website, confirming the delivery of Exhibit A2 lawyer's notice to the opposite party.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. A true copy of the bank transaction showing the payment of Rs 3,456 made by the complainant to the opposite party on 6-03-2021. (Exhibits A-1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
In the matter at hand, the complainant filed the above case seeking compensation for the deficiency in service caused by the opposite party's failure to refund the amount.
We have heard Sri. Naveen Thomas, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant, submitted that the complainant operates "J J Dents," a self-employed dental products establishment. They engaged a Private Limited Company, represented by its Managing Director, for dental product procurement. A transaction occurred on 6-03-2021, involving a payment of Rs 3,456/- for Metal trimmers, which covered taxes and delivery costs. The opposite party assured prompt delivery but failed to fulfil this commitment, leading to allegations of unfair trade practices and deficient service. Subsequently, a lawyer's notice was dispatched on 01/04/2021, demanding both the refund of the payment and an additional Rs 10,000 due to incurred losses. Regrettably, despite acknowledging receipt on 3-04-2021, the opposite party remained unresponsive.
The complainant contends that the opposite party’s actions inflicted substantial mental distress and business losses, including Rs.10,000/- setback stemming from their association with the Indhira Institute of Dental Science. To bolster their assertions, the complainant produced four exhibits. Exhibit A1 features the bank transaction document, evidencing the Rs 3,456 payment on 6-03-2021. Exhibit A2 comprises the lawyer's notice issued on 01/04/2021, seeking payment refund and additional compensation of Rs 10,000 along with interest from 06-03-2021, to be fulfilled within 15 days. The original postal receipt, validating the issuance of Exhibit A2 notice on 1-04-2021, is presented as Exhibit A3. Furthermore, the complainant offers Exhibit A4, a downloaded print from the Department of Post's website, confirming the delivery of Exhibit A2 notice to the opposite party.
Considering the opposite party’s absence of response or objections, they were set ex parte on 29-09-2022. Seeking redress, the complainant grievances the Commission to mandate the return of the payment with interest, grant Rs 10,000 for losses, and direct payment of Rs 30,000 to address mental distress. The complainant asserts that the opposite party’s conduct constitutes unfair trade practices, deficient service, breach of trust and contract, and a grave legal infraction. These actions have evidently compromised both the complainant's commercial pursuits and overall well-being.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The complainant, who operates a dental products business under the name "J J Dents," had ordered Metal trimmers from the opposite party on March 3, 2021. The complainant paid a total of Rs 3,456 on March 6, 2021, covering taxes and delivery charges. The opposite party had promised timely delivery within a week, given the complainant's urgent requirement.
However, the opposite party failed to fulfil their commitment, and when inquired about the delay, they provided excuses, including a festival delay. The opposite party did not take substantial action to rectify the situation. This resulted in financial losses for the complainant, including Rs 10,000, and damage to their reputation as they couldn't meet obligations with the Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Science, leading to a loss of goodwill in the market.
The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite party on April 1, 2021, demanding a refund of the paid amount and additional compensation of Rs 10,000/- for the incurred loss. Despite receiving the legal notice on April 3, 2021, the opposite party did not respond.
The complainant approached the Commission, seeking a directive to refund the payment of Rs 3,456 along with interest from March 6, 2021. Additionally, the complainant requested compensation amounting to Rs 10,000 to cover the incurred losses and an additional payment of Rs 30,000 to address further damages and distress.
The Commission issued a notice to the opposite party, but they did not respond, resulting in being set ex-parte.
The complainant presented evidence, including bank transaction records (Exhibit A-1), a lawyer's notice (Exhibit A-2), the postal receipt for the notice (Exhibit A-3), and confirmation of notice delivery (Exhibit A-4).
The key points for analysis were whether the complaint was maintainable, whether there was a deficiency in service or unfair trade practices by the opposite party, whether the complainant was entitled to relief and the question of costs.
In light of the evidence presented and the unchallenged claims of the complainant, the Commission found merit in the complainant's case. The opposite party's failure to respond to the Commission's notice amounted to an admission of the allegations. Therefore, the Commission ruled in favor of the complainant.
We find the issue Nos. (II) to (IV) are also found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party shall refund Rs 3,456 along with interest at a rate of 9% per annum from March 6, 2021, until the date of payment of full amount to the complainant.
- The Opposite Party shall pay compensation of Rs 10,000 for the losses incurred and mental distress suffered by the complainant.
- The Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings, incurred by the complainant.
The Opposite Party is liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest at the rate of 9% per annum from March 6, 2021, until the date of payment of full amount to the complainant.
Pronounced in the Open Commission 15th day of September 2023.
Sd/
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Assistant Registrar
uk
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
- Exhibit A1: A true copy of the bank transaction showing the payment of Rs 3,456 made by the complainant to the opposite party on 6-03-2021.
- Exhibit A2: A true copy of a lawyer's notice dated 01/04/2021 issued on behalf of the complainant, demanding the return of the payment of Rs 3,456 and an additional Rs.10,000/- within 15 days from receipt of the notice.
- Exhibit A3: The original postal receipt dated 1-04-2021 for the issuance of Exhibit A2 notice.
- Exhibit A4: A true copy of a print downloaded from the Department of Post's website, confirming the delivery of Exhibit A2 lawyer's notice to the opposite party.
