Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/132/2018

Amit Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ekta Courier - Opp.Party(s)

in person

24 Feb 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI

                                                                        Complaint No. 132 of 2018

                                                                        Date of Institution: 24.09.2018

                                                                        Date of Decision:  24.02.2023.

 

Amit Kumar s/o Sh. Ratan Lal, Halu bazar, Matu Ram purse, nearby dhagayan gali, Anara Devi school Bhiwani tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

                                                                                            ............….Complainant.

Versus

1. Manager, Ekart courier logistics private limited office, near uttami bai arya girls sr. sec school, naya bazaar, bhiwani-127021.
2. Manager, tech connect retail pvt. Ltd., 1213, galleria complex, dlf phase v, gurugram-122009.
3. Manager, tech connect retail pvt. Ltd., bilaspur pataudi road, near bilaspur chowk at NH8, Opp TATA Service Center, bilaspur-122413.

 

                                                                                            ...........…....Respondents. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986

BEFORE:  SH. NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

                     MRS. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, MEMBER.

                    

Present:        Sh. Anirudh, Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.NL.Saini, Advocate for opposite party No.1.

                     Opposite party No.2 given up.

                     Opposite party No.3 already exparte.

 

                                         ORDER:    

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.           Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant are that he had ordered an online wrist watch on 12.09.2018 from the Flipkart company and paid Rs.40000/- in cash to the delivery boys. But when the complainant opened the box, he saw that the watch was of Armani company whereas he has ordered for smart watch. The complainant registered an online complaint on the Flipkart helpline number and he was told that his complaint will be resolved but despite repeated requests of the complainant, the product was not changed. Finally on September 18, 2018 it was reported that you had previously returned the order so your account is blacklisted and you will no longer be able to do any transaction with Flipkart Company and that the matter has been sent to the CEO and false promises were made by Flipkart company to the effect that the money will be paid back to the complainant. But till date the grievance of the complainant has not been resolved. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of wrist watch amounting to Rs.39900/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant as explained in relief clause.   

2.                  After registration of complaint notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.3 received back with the report of refusal. As such opposite party No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.10.2018 of this Commission. Opposite party No.2 was given up by the complainant being unnecessary party on dated 26.02.2019.  Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that the product in issue was purchased through “Flipkart” and not the opposite party No.1. It is therefore pertinent that complainant has maliciously impleaded the answering opposite party for no reason but cannot gain illegal monetary benefits from the opposite party No.1.  It is further submitted that the answering opposite party no.1 is an independent logistic service provider who provides its logistic services all over the globe. Secondly the opposite party No.1 picks the seal packed product from the seller and delivers it to the buyer without altering/opening/damaging/tampering the packaging on the box. In the present complaint, the complainant alleges to have received a different product from that of the ordered one. However, even if we consider the averments made by the complainant to be true, his averments would be maintainable only against the seller of the product and not the answering opposite party no.1 as it was the seller who supplied the seal packed box to the opposite party no.1 for delivery. Thus the opposite party No.1 was unaware of the content of the seal packed box right from picking it up from seller’s place and throughout the journey till the time it was delivered to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

3.                  Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered Annexure C1 to Annexure C25 and closed his evidence on dated 31.01.2020. However, opposite party No.2 was given up by the complainant vide his statement dated 26.02.2012. Ld. counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Annexure RW1/1 on dated 14.07.2022 but thereafter failed to file any evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and as such evidence of opposite party No.1 was closed vide order dated 20.09.2022 of this Commission.

4.                  We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through written argument filed by opposite party No.1 and also gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                  In the present case grievance of the complainant is that he had ordered two smart watches online from flipkart on dated 12.09.2018 for a sum of Rs.39990/- through cash on delivery and the delivery boys charged Rs.40000/- from the complainant. But  after opening the packet/box, the complainant came to know that there were ordinary watches of Armani company instead of smart watches. Complainant made a return request, which was accepted. But despite picking up the product by the company, no refund has been made to the complainant inspite of several emails and requests made by the complainant.  To prove his case complainant has placed on record copies of emails Annexure C1 to Annexure C23 and copy of Tax Invoice Annexure C24 and Annexure C25.  As per the tax invoice Annexure C24 and Annexure C25, the price of watches is 19995/- each and the name of seller is Tech Connect private ltd. i.e. opposite party no.3. However, the name of Armani company is not mentioned in the alleged invoices. Hence the opposite parties have sent wrong products to the complainant. On the other hand, contention of the opposite party no.1 is that he has delivered the same product to the complainant, which was received from the seller. On the other hand, seller(opposite party No.3) did not appear before this Commission despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite party No.3 has nothing to say in the matter and therefore, all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite party No.3 regarding selling of different product stands proved. As per Annexure C21, the returned was approved, the items were picked up by the opposite party but till date amount has not been refunded to the complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.3 for sending the wrong products to the complainant and the opposite party no.3 being seller is liable to refund the price of products.

6.                  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to pay the price of products/watches i.e. Rs.40000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.24.09.2018 till its realization and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.

7.                  Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

24.02.2023.

         

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

                                                              Nagender Singh, President

 

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

                                                              Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.