Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/213/2015

Manoj Kumar Dhaloch - Complainant(s)

Versus

Eureka Forbes - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

03 Sep 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                      

First Appeal No.	:	213 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	02.09.2015
Date of Decision	:	03.09.2015

 

Manoj Kumar Dhaloch, # 527, Block No.35, CRPF  Campus, Hallomajra, Chandigarh (UT.)-160002.

 

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

 

Eureka Forbes, B-1/B-2, 701, 7^th Floor, Marathon Innova, Marathon NextGen, Off. Ganpatrao, Kadan Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.

              ....Respondent/Opposite Party

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:  MR. DEV RAJ, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Sh. Vinod Dhaloch, Brother of Sh. Manoj Kumar    Dhaloch (appellant/complainant).

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 3.8.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Party (now respondent), as under:-

      “In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed as under ;-

1. To refund the booking amount of the product i.e. Rs.22,990/- to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant
3. To pay Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) and (ii) above shall also carry interest @12% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.”

2.        The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant booked Aquaguard Geneus with the Opposite Party on 24.04.2015 by depositing a sum of Rs.22,990/- vide customer id No.8000600193 dated 24.04.2015.   The Opposite Party delivered the Aquaguard on 28.04.2015 and the delivery boy did not allow the complainant to check the product and, therefore, he did not accept the delivery and returned the product to him. It was further stated that thereafter, he rang up at 07483038789 but nobody bothered to receive the call though the billing was coming on the same day. It was further stated that he rang up another help No.02239432900 on the same day and lodged the complaint giving details of the conversation between the delivery boy and him.  It was confirmed by the helpline to forward the complaint to the concerned department but it did not give the complaint number.  It was further stated that on 29.04.2015, the complainant rang up the helpline and requested it to give the complaint number but to no effect and ultimately, he lodged a fresh complaint and obtained complaint No.91782147 dated 29.04.2015. It was further stated that the complainant was also assured that the concerned department would call back him within an hour but no call was received.  It was further stated that on 01.05.2015, 02.05.2015 and 05.05.2015, the complainant talked to the supervisor of the Opposite Party who assured him to give some time to resolve the matter but to no effect.   It was further stated that after waiting for 15 days, the complainant got cancelled the order on 08.05.2015 and asked the Opposite Party to refund the deposited amount. It was further stated that the Opposite Party informed the complainant that the department would call him regarding the cancellation of the order within 24-48 hours and he would get his money within 12 days from 08.05.2015. It was further stated that  the complainant rang up the Opposite Party to know about the cancellation of the order and refund. He was told that they would call back him within 30 minutes. They also provided the complainant, complaint No.91869524 dated 13.05.2015 but no response was received. It was further stated that on 15.05.2015, the complainant received a call from the courier boy who informed him about one courier in his name from Mumbai and asked him to come and collect the courier whereas it was mentioned in the main page to deliver the product at his home. However, he had already cancelled the order.  It was further stated that on 18.05.2015, the complainant received a call from Delhi enquiring him as to whether the product has been delivered or not. However, the complainant told that he had already cancelled the order on 08.05.2015 and nothing was received from it. It was further stated that the Opposite Party told the complainant that they were sending his complaint to the Head Office and he would get call within 48 hours but to no effect. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts on the part of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, hence the complainant filed the complaint.
3.       Since none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party before the District Forum despite due service, it was proceeded against exparte by the District Forum on 17.07.2015.
4. The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.
5. After hearing Sh. Vinod Dhaloch, the authorized agent for the complainant, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
6. Feeling aggrieved, against the inadequate compensation granted by the District Forum, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/ complainant.
7. We have heard the authorized agent for the appellant, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 
8. The authorized agent for the appellant/complainant, submitted that compensation, awarded by the District Forum, is inadequate and meager to meet the ends of justice. Even, the refund was made without any interest. He further submitted that the compensation awarded by the District Forum be enhanced, as per the amount, which was claimed, in the complaint and the amount be refunded with interest @18%. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum be accordingly modified.
9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the arguments, advanced by the authorized agent for the appellant and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. No doubt, there was  deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party by not refunding the amount to the complainant even after cancellation of the order but in our considered opinion the District Forum adequately compensated the complainant for the same. The District Foras are not meant for enriching the consumers, at the hands of the service providers, by awarding unfair, unjust and excessive compensation. Consumer Foras are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time, aims to bring about a qualitative change, in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed, calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account, all the relevant factors and assess compensation, on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. In Charan Singh, Appellant Vs. Healing Touch Hospital and others, Respondents, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 3138. In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jagat Nursing Home and Hospital  and Another, IV (2010) CPJ 199 (N.C.), the principle of law, laid down, by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, was to the effect, that the compensation should be commensurate with loss and injury, suffered by the complainant. The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the hands of the service providers, by awarding unfair, unjust and excessive compensation. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the instant case. The District Forum, keeping in view the various factors prevailing on record, came to the conclusion that the complainant was entitled to compensation, in the sum of Rs.3000/-, besides the refund of amount, deposited by him and litigation cost in the sum of Rs.2500/-. In our considered opinion, the compensation awarded by the District Forum can be said to be adequate, reasonable and just. No ground, whatsoever, therefore, is made out for enhancement of the same. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
10. No other point, was urged, by the authorized agent for the appellant.
11. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
13. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
14. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

3.9.2015

Sd/- 

                                                                                 (DEV RAJ)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/- 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

     MEMBER