Ramandeep Singh filed a consumer case on 17 Mar 2023 against Gera Opticals and contact lens in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/22/119 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Apr 2023.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. 119 of 2022
Date of Decision: 17.03.2023
Ramandeep Singh @ Ramandeep Singh Cheema, son of Gurdev Singh, aged about 30 years resident of Village Salaura, PO Pathreri Jattan, District Ropar
……Complainant
Versus
……Opposite Parties
Consumer Complaint under Section Consumer Protectio Act
Quorum: Smt.Ranvir Kaur, Member.
Sh. Ramesh Kumar Gupta, Member
Present: Sh. Amrit Kumar Sharma, Adv. for complainant
OP No.1 exparte
Sh. Gourav, Adv. for OP2
Order dictated by :- Smt. Ranvir Kaur, Member
ORDER
RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
The present complaint has been filed by the complainant on the averments that the complainant had purchased the cooper vision multipurpose contact lens solution with case for sensitive eyes clear 250 ml (pack of 1) from the mobile App namely Amazon, which is operated and managed by the OP No.2 on 26.4.2022 and the above said product was sold by the Isha Thapar Gera optical and contact lenz clinic, bus stand to college road Malekotla Punjab i.e OP1 and the complainant was charged with Rs.399/- and the same was delivered to the complainant on 30.4.2022. After receiving the product, the complainant noticed that the MRP on the above mentioned product was Rs.360/- (incl. of all taxes) but he has been charged with Rs.399/- by the OPs and then the complainant sent message to OP No.1 on 5.6.202, he complaint about the issue and requested the OP1 to return the access amount charged, but OPs replied that they charged only Rs.350/- and did not accept their wrong, unethical and unfair trade practices and denied to return the access amount charged to the complainant. In this way, the OPs totally denied the bill and transaction which was occurred at the time of purchasing the said product, even no assistance and help was provided by the OP2, and allowed sellers to charge more than on MRP on their website. Due to the said act and conduct of the Ops, the complainant has suffered a monetary and physical loss and prayed for following reliefs:-
2. Upon notice, the OP No.1 has choosen to remain ex-parte vide order dated 14.12.2022.
3. Upon notice, the OP No.2 has filed written reply stating therein the complainant had placed an order for a Cooper Vision Multipurpose Contact Lens Solution with case for Sensitive Eyes, clear 250 Ml for Rs.399/- on 26.4.2022 from an independent third party seller OP1 i.e. Isha Thapar C/o Gera Optical having its place of business at Gera Optical and contact lens clinic, bus stand to college road, Malerkotla. The order was a merchant fulfilled order thereby meaning that the seller plays a complete role from a potential listing to the sale and delivery. All invoices for the sale transaction between the buyers and the independent third party sellers are tax invoices issued by the such independent third party seller clearly indicating their unique tax identification number/goods and service tax number. All payments are made directly by such buyers to independent third party sellers. Rest of allegations leveled by the complainant have been denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1/A along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. GS Arjun Kumar Ex.OP2/a along with documents Ex.DW2/1 to Ex.DW2/5 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record file, carefully.
5. From the perusal of the pleadings and evidence lead by the complainant and OP No.2 reveals as follows:-
Complainant alleges that MRP of the relevant product including the taxes was displayed as Rs.360/-, however, he was charged Rs.399/- vide invoice DW2/3. The case of the complainant has not been rebutted on merit by O2, rather it has tried to avoid its liability by shifting the burden on OP1. It is pertinent to mention here that relevant invoice is on printed pad of OP2 issued by OP1 as authorized signatory. Same has not been rebutted by OP2 rather the same has been put on record and proved by it.
5. In the aforesaid circumstances, as the OP2 can’t disown its liability towards the complainant, though it can settle the issue separately with OP1 on any ground if the later exceeded the authority. Consequently, both the OPs are jointly liable to compensate the complainant. Their liability is joint and several towards the complainant. Therefore, we allow the complaint with the directions to the OPs to pay Rs.15000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. The OPs are also directed to comply with the said order jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies be issued to the parties as per rules. The file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.
Announced
March, 17 2023
(Ranvir Kaur)
Member
(Ramesh Kumar Gupta)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.