1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he booked a Micromax Yureka-Yu Cyanogen Mod OS- 2GB RAM, 13 MP handset with OP.1 through online and remitted Rs.10, 999/- through net banking facility. The OP.2 being the marketing point of OP.1 contacted the complainant and sent the handset which was reached to the complainant on 17.4.2015 through OP No.4. It is submitted that before receiving the parcel from OP.4, the complainant found that the seal and packing of parcel was not in normal condition. On protest the OP.4 stated that he is delivering the parcel as it was received from the transporter. Initially the complainant did not agree to receive the parcel but as the OP.4 assured that he will remain present at the time of opening of the parcel, the complainant agreed to receive the same. It is further submitted that the complainant opened the parcel in presence of OP.4 and they found that the parcel box is full of scrap newspapers and the box weight was lower than the weight quoted on the box. The complainant immediately contacted the Ops 1 & 2 over phone who in turn made query with OP.4. The complainant also lodged a complaint through online with OP.1 vide Claim ID No.966352 dt.17.4.2015 and was under impression that problem would be sorted out by the Ops but on 08.05.2015, the complainant came to know that his complaint has been rejected byu the Op.1 on the ground that the contact number given by the complainant was not contactable on 08.05.15 14:45. It is also further submitted that the complainant thereafter contacted the Ops 1 & 2 but they simply turned down the approaches of the complainant. Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to supply the set as per order and to pay Rs.50, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. Registered notice on OP.3 returned unserved. On being served the Ops 1, 2 & 4 filed neither counter nor preferred to participate in the proceeding in any manner. The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case. Heard from the complainant and perused the materials available on record for orders on merit.
3. In this case the complainant has furnished the retail memo dt.09.4.2015 issued by OP.2 towards purchase of Yu Yureka handset by the complainant for Rs.8, 999/-. It is seen that the Ops 1 & 2 have sent the parcel through DTDC Courier (OP.3) on 13.4.15 which reached at the place of the complainant on 17.4.15. The OP.4 being the branch of OP.3 has come with the parcel and according to the complainant, before he received the parcel, found that the same was not in proper order to which the complainant did not agree to receive from OP.4. When the OP.4 agreed to remain present at the time of opening of the parcel, the complainant agreed and opened the same but in presence of OP.4 it was found that the parcel packet is full of scrap newspapers and the OP.4 has witnessed the same. It is further stated that the weight of parcel was lower than that of the weight quoted on the box.
4. It is seen that the OP.4 being the courier man had witnessed the incident at the time of handing over and opening of the parcel and the said OP.4 is a party to this case but in spite of valid notice, the Ops 3 & 4 did not prefer to participate in this case. Further the complainant in presence of OP.4 has informed the facts to Ops 1 & 2 over phone and at the same moment, the Ops in presence of the complainant had contacted OP.4 over phone. Hence Ops 1 & 2 has taken up the matter with Ops 3 & 4 but they failed to furnish their reply along with enquiry report made with Ops 3 & 4.
5. In order to know the subsequent correspondence to the incident, it was seen that the complainant has lodged a complaint on 17.4.15 with the Ops 1 & 2 vide Claim ID No.966352. There after the Ops 1 & 2 had sent emails on 19.4.15, 05.05.15 and 06.05.15 seeking certain information from the complainant which were duly complied and the complainant was on impression that the matter would be sorted out by the Ops but on 08.5.15 the complainant came to know that his claim was rejected by the Ops with reason that the mobile number supplied by the complainant was not contact able on 08.5.15 14:45. After that the Ops are not responding to the approaches of the complainant.
6. As discussed above, the Ops have responded on different dates to the grievances of the complainant and the complainant has supplied all information to them through email. If the Ops failed to contact the complainant over phone on 08.5.15, they could have sent the message through email but they did not do so. Further on the same date they have rejected the claim of the complainant and intimated the same through email which proves ulterior motive of the Ops and that leads to unfair and restrictive trade practice adopted by Ops 1 & 2.
7. In absence of counter and participation of the Ops 1 & 2 in this proceeding, we have lost opportunity to know anything from them. Hence the allegations of the complainant remained unchallenged. It is seen that the complainant after paying the consideration amount of the handset has received a ghost parcel from the Ops and as such he is entitled to get back his money with interest from the date of payment, although he has prayed for a new set from the Ops. Further due to non receipt of handset and fruitless attempts to convince the Ops through emails and phone, the complainant must have suffered some mental agony for which he is entitled for some compensation. Further he has come up with this case incurring some expenditure. Considering the sufferings of the complainant, we feel a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs in favor of the complainant will be just and proper.
8. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.8, 999/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 09.04.2015 and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(To dict)
