Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/152/2022

Priyanshu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Director/Prop. Tata Unistore Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ashok Jangra

16 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER     DISPUTES    REDRESSAL COMMISSION,          CHARKHI DADRI

                           Consumer Complaint No:152 of 2022

                           Date of Institution :    06.06.2022.

                           Date of Decision:        16.04.2024.

 

 

Priyanshu son of Sh. Ramprojen, resident of ward No.20, Backside Rose Garden, Ch. Dadri, The. & District Charkhi Dadri (Haryana) Mob.8168566813

…….Complainant.

Versus

1. Director/Prop. Tata Unistore Ltd. Corporate office Empire Plaza, 1^st, 2, LBS Marg, Chandan Nagar, Vikhroli West, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400083 Phone No. 09029108282.

…...OppositeParties(OPs).

 

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

 

Before:      Hon’ble Shri Manjit Singh Naryal,  President.

Hon’ble Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member.

 

 

Present:       Sh. Ashok Jangra,Counsel for complainant.

Sh.Rajat Sheoran,Counsel for OP.

ORDER

1.        This present complaint has been filed by complainant

Viz. Priyanshu against the opposite party viz. Tata Unistore Ltd.(for short the OP) Under Section 35 of The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in services on their part. Brief facts of the case are given hereinafter.

2.  
3.  
4. th time and collect the product. On 30.01.2021, the complainant received telephonic call wherein the OP company flatly refused to refund the payment. Thereafter, the complainant made many requests to refund the cost of phone, but the OP did not pay any heed to the request. According to complainant, the OP had intentionally and with malafide motive cheated the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part in selling wrong product to him, complainant by way of this complaint has sought refund of amount of Rs.40,975/- along with interest. Complainant further seeks compensation of 4,00,000/- for mental agony and litigation expenses.
   5. www.tatacliz.com/ http://Luxury.tatacliq.com/ mobile application (Tata CliQ/ Tata CLiQ Luxury) / tablet application (Tata CLiQ/ Tata CLiQ Luxury). It is averred that the answering opposite parties provide online market place platform to the sellers and buyers of products to facilitate the transactions with an aim to boost electronic commerce for various goods for buyers and sellers enabling them to deal in various categories of goods but not limited to mobiles, camera, computers, watches, clothes, footwear, healthcare and personal products, home appliances and electronics etc. According to OPs, the responsibility to deliver the products does not lie upon the answering opposite parties, but it is upon the seller under the warranty clause. Denying any deficiency in service, at last it is submitted to dismiss the complaint against answering OP with exemplary costs.

6.        In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/A documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-47 and closed the evidence on 16.03.2023. The learned counsel for the opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1 and pendrive Ex.RW1/1 and RW1/2 and closed the evidence on 06.10.2023

          Learned counsel for the OP made a statement on  20.02.2024 that written statement filed should be read in his arguments.

7.       We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties. It is an admitted fact that the complainant booked Oneplus 7T Pro 256 GB (Haze Blue) 8GB Ram Dual SIM 4G vide order  ID no. 111057403 for Rs. 40,975/- on 05.01.2021 vide Ex.C1.It is also admitted that the above item was assured to be delivered by the OP on 07.01.2021 and the same was delivered on scheduled day.

8.          The complainant had received the parcel on 07.01.2021 which allegedly contain item other than the order one. The complainant was not satisfied by the wrong item supplied by OP and he promptly lodged complaint against the same. Ex.C43 being delivery related documents prove his claim that the complainant contacted the OP, but he received only false assurance and lastly the wrong delivered item was not returned. This proves highhandedness and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. It is sad and highly disturbing to note that the complainant paid money in advance. Hence he had no option to pressurize the OP for return of wrong product against ordered mobile handset.

9.          Hence, as an upshot of the above discussion, the OP cannot be absolved from its obligations on the pretext on intermediary as the item was to be delivered by the OP who is relied upon being brand name of (Tata CLiQ/ Tata CLiQ Luxury) and OP is held liable for deficiency in  service and unfair trade practice. Accordingly the present complaint is allowed against the opposite party, whereby OP is  held liable to refund price of Phone  of Rs.40,975/-, to the complainant, subject to return of the wrong item mobile phone received  by the complaint instead of  ordered phone along with simple interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of purchase till realization. Complainant is also allowed for compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental agony,  harassment and Rs. 5,000/- on account of litigation expenses, which be also paid to complainant within the stipulated period of 45 days, failing which the said amounts shall also fetch interest @12%p.a.from the date of filing of the complaint till realization.

10.     Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs, as per rules, and this order be promptly uploaded on the website of this Commission. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.