DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.457 of 6.12.2018

                                      Decided on:          19.7.2019

Pardeep Sharma @ Sony Sharma aged about 33 years son of Sh.Jai Narain, R/o VPO Bhankar, Tehsil and District Patiala-147103( Punjab) (Aadhar Card No.2622 9735 7345) Mobile No.97799-32427.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Dynamic Beneficial Accord Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.585, Sector-82, JLPL, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali-160082.

2.       Dynamic Beneficial Accord Marketing Pvt. Ltd.,Training Centre, at House No.824/8, Block 11, Sharda Nagar, Jalbera Road, Ambala City-143003.

3.       Smt.Rajnish Sharma wife of Sh.Sanjiv Kumar, R/o VPO Bhankar, Tehsil and District Patiala 147103, Punjab.

4.       Sh.Parvinder Singh son of Sh.Avtar Singh R/o VPO Bhankar, Tehsil and District Patiala 147103,Punjab.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member      

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Pardeep Sharma, complainant in person.

                                      Sh.Manjit Singh Sidhu, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      OPs No.2 to 4 Ex-parte.

ORDER

                                    SH. M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Pardeep Sharma  (here-in-after referred to as the complainant) against Dynamic Beneficial Accord Marketing Pvt. Ltd. and others (here-in-after referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that OPs No.3&4 belong to the village of complainant. They have been in job with OPs No.1&2 on commission basis. Accordingly complainant came into contact of OPs No.3&4 and at the instance of OPs No.3&4 he gave Rs.50,000/- to OPs No.3&4 for on-line business of garments accessories like shores, purse, garments, T-shirts, Jeans pants, belts and spectacles etc. OP No.1 is to supply the material to the complainant and the complainant was to earn commission on sale of these items from OPs No.1&2.
3. OPs No.3&4 allotted distribution ID No.289120 from OPs and gave the complainant detail of purchasing items vide bill having order No.201249.The purchasing date given was 19.11.2017.The complainant has made payment of Rs.40098.79 but the material mentioned in the bill has not been supplied till date. The complainant so many times made calls at Customer care No.91124-4576162 of OPs and chat on website of the OPs regarding supply of the material but they always assured the complainant for supply of material within 10-15 days.
4. The complainant availed financial assistance from his father who took loan against his pension. Complainant has no other source of income. His father is paying the installments of loan taken by him against his pension.
5. It is alleged that due to negligence of the OPs, complainant could not start work. The OPs have utilized the amount of Rs.50,000/-.Inspite of repeated requests, the OPs have failed to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest. The complainant also suffered mental torture, financial loss.
6. On the back ground of these facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.The complainant has claimed refund of Rs.50,000/- with interest @18% per annum with Rs.70,000/- as compensation for mental and physical tension etc. and Rs.11000/- costs of litigation. Hence this complaint.
7. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OPs No.2 to 4.As such they were proceeded against exparte.
8. OP no.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written reply. In reply OP No.1 raised preliminary objections that the complaint is abuse of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. The complaint is based on wrong facts and has been filed on false and frivolous grounds. The complaint is not maintainable in law or facts. There is neither any deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1
9. The complainant while ordering gave his detail/address of delivery as Sony Sharma S/o Jai Narian, House No.824/8, Block No.11, Sharda Nagar, Jalbera Road, Ambala City, Mobile No.7589822857. This address is not a correct address. The complainant is not residing at the given address and mobile No. 7589822857 is not working. The product cannot be delivered at a wrong address or to some  other person who has not ordered the product. The OP no.1 tried to deliver the product twice.
10.  Product was again sent at the given address on 3.8.2018 through AVEO Logistic vide tracking No.30000012379. It was returned as Sony Sharma did not exist at the address. Only on 17.9.2018 the complainant gave the address of delivery as VPO Bhankher Tehsil and District Patiala and his mobile No.9779932427 and name as Pardeep Sharma. At this stage the delivery of product could not be completed,  so refund was approved. The same was to be deposited in the account of original customer i.e.Sony Sharma’s account but now the name was changed to Pardeep Sharma.
11. As per standard industry policy, the refund can only be made to same person who had purchased the goods. To further help the customer, an affidavit was demanded which could ascertain that Sony Sharma and the complainant Pardeep Sharma are the same person for the purpose of refunding the amount. No affidavit was given by the complainant. Hence it is clear that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed material facts. OP No.1 has proceeded the refund of the complainant but the same could not be processed as the product was purchased by customer Sony Sharma and refund was sought with different name without proper verification.
12. On merits, it is denied that OPs No.3&4 are in employment of OP No.1. It is further mentioned that they are independent distributors like complainant. The complainant is a fashion consultant/independent distributor who purchase product for further sale in the market or to other distributors  just like OPs No.3&4.
13. It is denied that Rs.50,000/-were paid to OP No.1.The total amount paid by the complainant to OP No.1 is Rs.36,567/-.
14. In further reply the OP No.1 has controverted all the averments and reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections. In the end the OP No.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
15. In support of his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy  of verification code,Ex.C1,  copy of showing address of OP No.1, Ex.C2, copy of on line bill dated 19.11.2017, Ex.C3,  On-line proof of address, ID No., Order No. of the complainant, Exs.C4 to C14, copy of distributor level information,Ex.C15,  copy of level proof, Ex.C16,  copy of order statement,Ex.C17, copies of online shopping payment proof,Exs.C18,C19,  copies of chat,Exs.C20 to C33copy of resident proof, Ex.34.
16. The OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Ravindra Kumar, Ex.OPA and conversation letter, Ex.OP1.
17. We have heard the complainant and the ld. counsel for OP No.1. They have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleas.
18. The complainant has pleaded for the refund of Rs.50,000/- with interest.The version of the complainant that this amount was paid to OPs No.3&4 but there is no documentary evidence to prove this fact. The complainant has himself relied upon the bill,Ex.C3, which proves that the total amount was Rs.36,567/- which included shipping charges. There is no other evidence to prove payment of any other amount.
19. It is also not the case of the complainant that the bill,Ex.C3 was not for complete supply of the goods. Therefore, it is to be accepted that OP No.1 has received total sum of Rs.36567/- only. The OP No.1 has refunded this amount to the complainant on 29.5.2019. This payment was for supply of the product.
20. The product was not supplied due to any lapse on the part of the complainant or the OP, the fact remains that the goods were not supplied against the order,Ex.C3 despite receipt of the sum of Rs.36567/-.The OP No.1 has certainly utilized the amount and the complainant remained deprived off from availing this amount. Therefore, the complainant is also entitled to interest on this amount by way of compensation. The OP has refunded the amount only after filing of the complaint. Therefore, the complainant is also entitled to the costs of the litigation.
21. As a result of this discussion, complaint is partly accepted with Rs.3000/-as costs of the litigation. OP No.1 is also directed to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of receipt of this amount i.e.19.11.2017 till   payment of the principal amount i.e. 29.5.2019.
22. Complaint against OPs No.2 to 4 stands dismissed.
23. Compliance of the order be made by  OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
24. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:19.7.2019       

 B.S.Dhaliwal                         Inderjeet Kaur              M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President