Adv. for the complainant - Self
Adv. for the O.P - NIL
Date of filing of the case – 12.10.2018
Date of order - 30.10.2019
JUDGMENT
Sri A.K.Purohit, President
1. The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a Lenovo K8 plus ( Venom Black ) mobile phone through on line process for a consideration of Rs. 8,800/-. The O.P. No. 2 is a Ecommerce platform who accepted the order of the complainant through online process vide order id: 17105487956591549 dated 26.7.18 and in turn the O.P. 2 allowed the seller O.P.1 for dispatch of the order of the complainant. The complainant received the product in his residential address at Patnagarh. Being dissatisfied with the said mobile phone the complainant wants to replace the same and requested the O.P. for replacement which was accepted by the O.P. Accordingly the complainant send the same by post in the post office of O.P.No.3 . The complainant alleges that, although he had returned back the mobile phone the O.P. has not yet refunded the consideration money. Hence the complaint.
2. Although notice has been served on the O.Ps. neither they appears nor have participated with the hearing of the case and hence they are set experte vide order dated 13.11.18 and 25.9.19.
3. It is seen from the record that the complainant is absent since13.11.18. This being an year old case the same has been disposed of on perusal of the material available on record. In support of his case the complainant has produce the Xerox copy of cash memo issued by the O.P.1 ,copy of postal receipt and copy of correspondent between the complainant and the O.P.2.
4. All these evidence available on record shows that the complainant had purchased a mobile phone from the O.P.1 through online process for a consideration of Rs. 8,800/-. It is also seen from the correspondence between the parties that, the complainant is allowed for the replacement of the mobile phone and the amount will be refunded after receipt of the same in the ware house of the O.P.2. The customer service in his letter dated August 20 in Para.4 has mentioned that, “ As I see the package is currently in transit to our fulfillment center. As soon as the item will reach the ware house we will initiate the refund in your original payment mode which you used for placing the order.” This shows that the O.P.2 has not received the returned package. It is seen from the postal receipt issued by the O.P.3 that the returned item is not in the name of either O.P.1 or 2. There is no evidence available on record to show that the complainant has sent the mobile phone either to the O.p.1 or O.P. 2 and the same was received by them.
5. With these material available on record and under the aforesaid discussion the case does not disclose any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.
Hence the case of the complainant is dismissed.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER’2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT
