Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. : 121.

                                                          Instituted on     : 23.02.2017.

                                                          Decided on       : 13.07.2017.

Mohit Lather son of Sanjeet, resident of house no.2070, Ram Gopal Colony, Rohtak.

                                                          ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

Dhamaal Shop, M/s G.L.Electronics, Dighi Block colony, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar-844101, through its Managing Director.

                                                     ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT.

                   MS. KOMAL KHANNA, MEMBER.

                   SH.VED PAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Opposite party exparte.

                                      ORDER

SH. JOGINDER KUMAR JAKHAR, PRESIDENT :

1.                          The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he had purchase Videocon 32” LED TV by paying Rs.6599/- to the opposite party by initiating online transfer. It is averred that complainant while surfing the website of opposite party  and getting lured by their fake promise placed an order of Videocon LED TV vide order No.DS54576 and payment of Rs.6599/- was made through online mode. It is averred that copy of receipt and confirmation mail sent by the opposite party date 25.08.2016. The payment was done through HDFC Bank  but since date the complainant has made numerous attempts to contact the opposite party to get the status of delivery of the TV and sent numerous reminders but no response was gathered by the complainant. It is averred that there is great deficiency on the part of opposite party. As such it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to refund the amount of Rs.6599/-  alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                          Notice of the present complaint was sent to the opposite party through registered post but none appeared on behalf of opposite party and as such opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.04.2017 of this Forum.

3.                          Complainant led evidence in support of his case and has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence.

4.                          We have heard the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                          There is no rebuttal to the evidence that as per email Ex.C1, complainant had placed an order for purchase of LED TV from the opposite party. It is also not disputed that  as per document Ex.C3/Ex.C4, an amount of Rs.6599/- was deposited  by the complainant on dated 25.08.2016 and as per Ex.C5 the alleged amount has been debited from his account in favour of opposite party. But despite awaiting for two   months,  the LED was not sent by the opposite party. Copy of emails Ex.C7 and Ex.C8 are also placed on record.

6.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that order was placed and payment was made by the complainant to the opposite party for purchase of LED. But opposite party failed to supply the same to the complainant. It is also on record that opposite party did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite party has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding non supply of LED stands proved. In this regard reliance has been placed upon the law cited in III(2008)CPJ 98 titled Pahnawa Boutique & Anr. Vs. Shaifi Verma Hon’ble Haryana State Commission, Panchkula has held that: “Complaint fully supported by affidavit-No basis to reject complainant’s version-O.P.failed to contest proceedings despite notice-Order of Forum allowing the ex-parte complaint upheld”, as per 1998(3)CCC 65(P & H) Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sardari Lal Vs. Kartar Singh & Ors. has held that: Non-appearance of a party as a witness in the suit-Gives rise to a strong presumption against him”. In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that it is a fit case where the refund of price is justified.

7..                         In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite party is liable to refund the booking amount of T.V to the complainant.. As such opposite party shall refund the amount of Rs.6599/-(Rupees six thousand five hundred ninety nine only) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.23.02.2017 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of order.  Complaint is allowed accordingly.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.

9.                 File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

13.07.2017.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Joginder Kumar Jakhar, President

                                                          ....................................

                                                          Komal Khanna, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………..

                                                                        Ved Pal, Member