IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
KOLLAM
C.C.No. 245/2024
PRESENT
SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT
SRI. STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER
ORDER DATED: 30.09.2024
BETWEEN
Marwa Afsal,
Pulliyil. P.V.North,
Thazhava P.O., Karunagappally,
Kollam 690 523. : Complainant
AND
FEMAURA Online Shopping
(website:femaura.in)
3rd Floor, Safair Textile Hub,
Opposite Renuka Silk Mill,
380004, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat
ORDER
S.K.SREELA, PRESIDENT
1. The grievance of the complainant is as follows: On March 19, 2024, the complainant placed an order for a churidar set worth ₹1,299 on the online shopping site of the opposite party, femaura.in, with the order ID FMAR5835. On the same day, in the evening, the complainant received a call from the customer care number of the same website for order confirmation, and the complainant confirmed the order. Subsequently, on Sunday, March 24, 2024, the order was delivered to the complainant’s home, and the complainant paid ₹1,299 upon receiving the order.
2. However, inside the package, instead of the churidar that the complainant intended to purchase, there were two sarees of different colours. Furthermore, the parcel carried an order number FMAR5788 instead of the complainant's order ID FMAR5835. But the address, product name, and other details on the package were those of the complainant. This can be considered the first indication of the unfair trade practices by the opposite party.
3. As a remedy for receiving incorrect products, as mentioned on their website, the complainant followed the first step of sending an email to the provided email address. Following this, the complainant made several calls to the mobile number provided. Despite these efforts, no response was received. The complainant repeated the same actions on the following days, continuously trying to contact them through different numbers and emails, yet no response came from the opposite party. This denotes a serious deficiency in the service of the opposite party. Even calling back the number that had previously called to confirm the order resulted in no resolution. As a last resort, the complainant placed another order from the same website, hoping to receive a confirmation call. After two days, the complainant received a call from a different number, and during the conversation about the new order, the complainant discussed the issue with the first order. The opposite party asked for the order number, acknowledged the mistake on their end, and apologized for the inconvenience. They promised to pick up the wrong items and deliver the correct product within two days, assuring the complainant with a follow-up call. However, as of today, there has been no further communication or action from the opposite party. The failure to deliver the promised goods and services amounts to complete betrayal of trust. Hence this complaint for compensation for the financial loss and mental distress caused by the opposite party's fraudulent conduct and failure to fulfil their promised services.
4. A notice was issued to the opposite party at the address provided on the electronic platform where the complainant availed the service. Although the
notice was confirmed as delivered, the opposite party failed to respond, appear, or submit their version in this case. Consequently, as the opposite party remained absent without any representation, they were set ex parte.
5. The complainant has filed an affidavit and marked Exhibits P1 to P7 as part of her evidence. Since the opposite party remained ex parte, the affidavit of the complainant stands unchallenged.
6. The issues for consideration in this case are;
I. Whether there was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by
the opposite party
II. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation for financial loss
and mental distress
III.Reliefs and costs.
7. Points 1 to 3: This complaint is filed by the complainant, a student, alleging unfair trade practices and deficiency in service by the opposite party. The complainant has produced documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P7, which confirm the facts as pleaded in the complaint. The opposite party, despite being duly served with a notice, has failed to appear or file any representation. Consequently, the opposite party was set ex parte, and the affidavit of the complainant remains unchallenged.
8. The primary issue is to determine if the opposite party failed to provide the correct product and service as promised, and whether their lack of communication and follow-up constitutes a deficiency in service and whether the complainant should be awarded compensation for the inconvenience, mental distress, and financial loss caused by the opposite party's failure to deliver the correct product and respond to complaints.
9. Exhibit P1 confirms that the complainant made the payment of ₹1,299 to the opposite party. Exhibit P2 shows that the complainant promptly addressed the issue with the opposite party, and it also corroborates the payment made by the complainant. Exhibit P5, the order summary, clearly establishes that the complainant placed an order for a purple embroidered chanderi suit set, priced at ₹1,299. These documents provide irrefutable evidence that the complainant not only made the payment but also took timely steps to resolve the issue with the opposite party, who failed to respond.
10. The complainant pleads that she received two sarees instead of the ordered purple embroidered chanderi suit set. Despite several efforts, including emails and phone calls, the opposite party neither responded to the grievances nor took any action to correct the issue. The failure of the opposite party to provide the correct product or address the complainant’s grievances constitutes a clear deficiency in service, as well as an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
11. The opposite party was duly served with notice but failed to appear or contest the case. This non-response strengthens the complainant’s case, as the allegations and evidence provided by the complainant remain uncontested. The opposite party’s failure to address the grievances or deny the allegations implies tacit acceptance of the deficiency in service.
12. Given the unchallenged affidavit and the clear evidence of the opposite party’s neglect, the complainant, a student, has been subjected to undue financial loss and mental distress. The opposite party’s failure to resolve the issue despite repeated attempts by the complainant justifies compensation for both the financial loss and the mental agony suffered.
13. In light of the above findings, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to refund the sum of ₹1,299 to the complainant, the amount paid for the order as confirmed by Exhibits P1 and P2. The opposite party shall pay a compensation of ₹10,000 to the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices and shall also pay ₹2,000 as litigation costs to the complainant. The opposite party is directed to comply with this order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of the order until the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential AssistantSmt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in theOpen Commission this the30th day ofSeptember 2024.
Sd/-
S.K.SREELA
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
STANLY HAROLD
MEMBER
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 : Order summary
Ext.P2 : complainant promptly addressed the issue with the opposite party, and it also
corroborates the payment made by the complainant.
Ext.P3 : Product details
Ext.P4 : Order details
Ext.P5 : Order summary
Ext.P6 : Contact information
Ext.P7 : Address information
Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite parties:-Nil
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
