West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/125/2016

Sri Ranendra Manna - Complainant(s)

Versus

General Manager Snapdeal Infotech Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Rabindranath Singh

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and

Kapot Kumar Chattopadhyay

   

Complaint Case No.125/2016

 

Sri Ranendra Manna S/o-Radhakrishna Manna,

Vill-Mahatabpur, P.O.-Midnapore,  P.S.-Kotwali,

Dist-Paschim Medinipur…..….………Complainant

Versus

G.M., Snapdeal Infotech Pvt. Ltd., 246, 1^st Floor, Phase-III,

Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi………....…Opposite. Party.

 

 For the Complainant:  Mr. Rabibdranath Singh,  Advocate.

 For the O.P.              :      

 

Decided on: - 06/12/2016

                               

ORDER

                         Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member – The fact of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant for purchasing one Gionee Elite S-5.5, 16G.B. Black Mobile phone booked an order on 01/04/2016 before the O.P. through contact no. at the consideration of Rs.9,980/-(Nine thousand nine hundred eighty) only including delivery charges. Thereafter the complainant went on a tour to Assam.  The complainant states that the O.P. informed the complainant that the booked articles will be delivered soon and informed that the purchase value of Rs.9,980/- (Nine thousand nine hundred eighty) only have to be kept ready.  The complainant states as he was out of station he told his father-in-law to pay the said amount to the delivery men of the O.P. and on the schedule date i.e. 05/04/2016 the delivery man of the O.P. delivered the parcel at the schedule address and took the amount from the father-in-law of the complainant and the father-in-

Contd………..P/2

                                         

( 2 )

law kept the parcel at his house.  The complainant contends that on 08/04/2015 he reached the house and in the evening he opened the parcel and found that there is a Manorama Year Book in the said parcel instead of the item he booked. The complainant became astonished and informed the matter to the O.P.  over phone and thereafter the complainant sent a complain through e-mail on 08/04/216 to the O.P.  O.P. replied that within 48 hours the O.P. will reply to the complainant. The complainant further sends an e-mail requesting the O.P. to send the item that he booked at early as possible.  On 10/04/2016 the O.P.  replied to the complainant through e-mail that the booked item cannot be returned or replaced without showing any cause or reason.  Thereafter the complainant again requested the O.P. to provide him details of shipment to the product and also asked the C.C.T.V. footage and IMEI No. of the Mobile phone but the O.P. did not provide any information by which the complainant could have found the location where the said booked mobile phone has been kept. Finding no other way the complainant sent a Advocate’s Notice on 18/06/2016 stating the return the mobile phone otherwise the complainant will take legal steps against the O.P.  Though received the notice the O.P. did not return the booked item and did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Finding no alternative the complainant has compelled to file this present complainant against the O.P.  As there is gross deficiency on the part of the O.P.,  the complainant has come before the Ld. Forum for redress with a prayer directing the O.P. to pay  the cost of the Mobile phone of Rs.9,980/- with compensation of Rs.80,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.8,000/-.

                             In view of the fact it is crystal clear that O.P. did not provide service to the complainant and also avoids to return the booked item or the cost of the said mobile set.

                           So, it is a fit case to hold that the complainant has proved the allegation of deficiency of service against the O.P.

                         Notice of this case was duly served upon the O.P. but they did not appears to contest this case. Hence, the ex-parte hearing.

                         In this connection to prove this case, some documents have been filed by the complainant and he tendering an affidavit-in-chief supported by an affidavit.

                 Documents filed :-

1)Message mail dated 23/04/2016 ;

2)G.S mail dated 23/04/2016

3)Purchase cover SnapdealUNISNPC-20469438;

Contd………..P/3

                                         

( 3 )

 

4)Around the book by xerox copy of purchased;

5)Monorama Year Book;

6)Goods Cover (Plastic) of Snapdeal;

7)Lawyers notice dated : 18/06/2016;

8)Postal registration receipt.

                                        Hence,

                                                     it is,

ORDERED

                                                                   that the complainant case be and the same as allowed ex-parte. The complainant do get Rs.9,980/-(Nine thousand nine hundred eighty) only for the cost of the mobile hand set for deficiency of service payable by the O.P. to the complainant O.P. is also directed to pay Rs.6,000/- for compensation, for harassment and mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs.4,000/- within 60 days from the date of this order.

               Let plain copy of order be given to the parties free of cost.

             Dictated and Corrected by me

                     Sd/- D. Sengupta.                  Sd/- K.K.Chattopadhyay.             Sd/-B. Pramanik.

                          Member                                      Member                                  President

                                                                                                                         District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur