Today is fixed for delivery of judgement. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission in 3 pages 2 separate sheet of papers.
By – Smt. Kabita Acharjee(Goswami), Member
This case has been filed by the complainant Sri Sudipata Mondal of Mangalchak, Narayanchak against the OPs by e-filing system on 11.11.2022 and the case has been registered under above number in this District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.
The fact of the case to put in a nutshell as below :
The complainant purchased one cell phone from the OP/Flipkart through the online. The model of the product is VIVOT15G (Rainbow Fantasy, 128 GB ROMand 6 GB RAM). The value of the product without offer is Rs. 20,990/-. Various discount offers have been given to the complainant from the side of OPs and last of all the complainant paid Rs. 15,019/-(Rupees fifteen thousand and nineteen only ) to the OP/Company Vivo through Flipkart. But when the complainant received the said cell phone he saw the cell phone colour is similar with the product what he ordered but it was with 128GB ROM and 4GB RAM instead of 128 GB ROM and 6 GB RAM. The complainant, on several occasions asked to the OP/company to change the mobile set but the OP/company did not change the set.
Notices were duly issued and served upon the OPs . After service of notice the OP-1 appears before this Commission but has not filed written version within statutory period .The op-2 did not appear to contest the case. Hence, the case proceeded exparte against the OPs. However, the op-1 has filed a written Argument which is on record.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the case maintainable in its present form and law ?
- Is the complainant entitle to the relief (s) as sought for ?
Decision with reasons
Both the points being interrelated with each other are taken up together for discussion for the sake of brevity and convenience.
We have carefully perused the evidence of the complainant and other materials on record. The Complainant is a consumer in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. The case is maintainable in the present form and in law.
On scrutinizing and evaluating the evidence and other materials on record it appears that the complainant purchased the product having features VIVOT15G (Rainbow Fantasy, 128 GB ROM and 6 GB RAM). The value of the product without offer is Rs. 20,990/-. Various discount offers have been given to the complainant from the side of OPs and last of all the complainant paid Rs. 15,019/-(Rupees fifteen thousand and nineteen only ) to the OP/Company Vivo through Flipkart. But when the complainant received the said cell phone he saw the cell phone colour is similar with the product what he ordered but it was with 128GB ROM and 4GB RAM instead of 128 GB ROM and 6 GB RAM.The complainant , on several occasions asked to the OP/company to change the mobile set but the OP/company did not change the set . It is very much clear from the unchallenged evidence that the ops caused delivery of different product with features as 128GB ROM and 4GB RAM instead of 128 GB ROM and 6 GB RAM by its delivery man. The complainant had took up the matter with the ops without causing any unreasonable delay. It is not the case of ops that they conducted in house investigation by checking CCTV Footage at packing and disbursing point. The ops did not opt for conducting police investigation; there is also no allegation that the complainant did not co-operate with the ops in the matter of any investigation. If we delve into the written argument filed the op-1, it is evident that op-1 offered a refund which was not acceptable to the complainant as he was stick to the point of replacement. So, from the unchallenged testimony it is established that the op caused delivery of different product with 128GB ROM and 4GB RAM instead of 128 GB ROM and 6 GB RAM by its delivery man. It is an instance of unfair trade practice. It also can not be ignored that similar product is not available for long time, with the passage of time the manufacturer launches new product with more advance features after stopping the production of previous brand and features. Having considered the facts circumstances of the case ,we think that it would be Just and proper if we ask the ops to return the purchase value Rs.15,019 along with simple interest @10% per annum from the date of purchase ie 15.10.2022 till payment , to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for harassment and to pay Rs. 500/-as towards litigation costs .
Thus, points for determination are disposed of.
The case succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered
That the CC/162/2022 be and the same is allowed exparte against the OPs.
The Ops 1 & 2, who are jointly and severally liable,are hereby directed to refund the purchase value Rs.15,019 along with simple interest @10% per annum from the date of purchase ie 15.10.2022 till full realization , to pay Rs.5000/-as compensation for harassment and to pay Rs. 500/-as towards litigation costs within forty five days from the date of this order .
On payment of the above amount by the ops, the complainant would hand over the mobile set (VIVOT15G Rainbow Fantasy, 128 GB rom and 4GB RAM) which was received by him as it is and what it is basis immediately upon a receipt.
In default of compliance of order by the ops the complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution as per law.
Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to the complainant and OPs free of cost.
