D.O.F : 14/12/2023
D.O.O : 29/11/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC 404/2023
Dated this, the 29th day of November 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Ameer Ahmed, aged 53 years
S/o Ahmed
Near Chaithra Hospital
P O Vidyanagar, Kasaragod.
Kasaragod Taluk & District.
(Adv:Shajid Kammadam) : Complainant
And
E Kart
611, Kannamai building
Third floor, B wing
Anna Slai, Chennai
Tamil Nadu, 600006.
Rep. by authorized person. : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
This complaint is filed under section 35 of CP Act, 2019. The complainant have an account in the facebook.com, an online social media and social networking service. The opposite party is an online store of home accessories who engaged in the business of selling products to interested buyers by acting as a mediator of communication between them. The complainant placed an order for an imported shoe rack. The total value for the product is Rs. 999/- only. The sale consideration was paid on 22/11/2013. The consignment was served through the opposite party on 09/12/2023. When the complainant opened the consignment, it contained shampoo instead of imported shoe rack. The expected item is missing. The parcel was arrived with entirely different product at destination. The complainant was deprived of peace of mind and had to spend time in worry. Immediately, the complainant registered his grievances with the opposite party. However it was not resolved. The facebook was allowed the seller to keep offers open and many customers continue to prey to this robbery. The opposite party neither delivered the product nor refunded the price of the product. The unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party caused huge loss and severe mental agony to the complainant. The cause of action for the complaint arose on 22/11/2023 in Kasaragod district, which is within the jurisdiction of this commission. It is the legal obligation of opposite party to deliver the agreed product. The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party indulged in unethical practice of fleecing their customers through illegal means. And there by committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service to the complainant which caused monitory loss, mental agony, physical strain and emotional insult to the complainant. Therefore the complainant is seeking delivery of the assured product with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and a cost of Rs. 5,000/- .
Notice of opposite party served. Name called absent, set exparte.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext. A1 is marked. Heard the complainant. The questions raised for consideration are;
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party in delivering shampoo instead of imported shoe rack?
- If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, all questions can be discussed together. Here the complainant had placed order for an imported shoe rack costs Rs. 999/- only. The price of the product was paid by virtue of invoice dated 22/11/2023. The complainant tried to purchase the product by giving its actual price. So he is a consumer. The consignment was received through opposite party on 09/12/2023. Ext. A1 envelop in which the article is delivered is produced to prove the delivery of the product. The grievance of the complainant is that the consignment contained shampoo instead of imported shoe rack, the expected item is missing. The complainant was deprived of peace of mind and registered his grievance with the opposite party. But it is not resolved so far. The attitude of opposite party proves unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The opposite party has got sufficient time to cure the defect occurred in delivery of the product. It is their legal obligation to correct the mistake in delivery.
We carefully gone through the affidavit filed by the complainant. There is nothing to disbelieve the affidavit of the complainant. In the absence of rebuttal evidence, there is serious dereliction of duty, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the opposite party is bound to correct their mistakes. As they are not ready to correct their mistakes according to their own will, this commission holds that the loss and mental agony undergone by the complainant has to be compensated in terms of money by opposite party.
The prayer of the complainant is to direct opposite party to deliver the assured product or return the price of the product with 12% interest, along with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- and cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.
Delivery of the assured product is highly necessary in this case. The compensation sought by the complainant is without any basis and highly excessive. Hence we holds that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled for the cost of litigation also.
Therefore complaint is partly allowed, directing opposite party to deliver the product shoe rack with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) along with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1 – Envelop
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
