D.O.F : 28/11/2023
D.O.O : 26/07/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.379/2023
Dated this, the 26th day of July 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Joby Thomas A T, aged 43 years
S/o Thomas
Sole Proprietor,
Jisha Store,
Balal, Kasaragod.
(Adv: Shajid Kammadam) : Complainant
And
Harshit Industries
Shop – 2 at Mustatil No. 14,
Killa West,
Sant Nagar Burai gali No. 17
Delhi, North Delhi 110084.
Rep. by authorized person. : Opposite Party
ORDER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
The complaint is filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The complainant is the owner of a small grocery shop and it is conducted by way of self employment. The complainant is having an account in www.facebook.com, which is an online social media and social networking site. The opposite party is a manufacturing entity of stretch film and other allied products and their product is advertised on facebook. By seeing the advertisement of opposite party, the complainant became interested in acquiring stretch film product of opposite party and placed order for the same. The total price shown for the product is Rs. 5,428/- and the same is paid on 22/3/2023. The opposite party assured him of delivering the same in a week by courier. The consignment was not served as assured by the opposite party in time. The complainant was deprived of peace of mind and had to spend time in worry. The complainant registered his grievances with the opposite party, however the product is not delivered. Neither the ordered product was delivered, nor refunded the price by opposite party caused severe mental agony and monitory loss to the complainant. The cause of action for the complaint arose on 22/3/2023 in Kasaragod district, which is within the jurisdiction of this commission. The complainant is seeking a direction against opposite party either to deliver the assured product or to refund the price with 12% interest from the date of payment till disbursement along with a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and with a cost of litigation.
Notice of opposite party returned stating refused.
The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Ext. A1 marked. Heard the complainant. The main questions raised for consideration are;
- Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for relief?
- If so, what is the relief?
All questions can be discussed together. The complainant had placed order for a stretch film which is exhibited in facebook by opposite party. The complainant paid the price of the product Rs. 5,428/- and produced Ext. A1 invoice with the complaint and as per the direction of opposite party, waited to get delivery of the product by courier. The opposite party assured to deliver the same in a week. But the product was not served as assured by the opposite party. The complainant registered his grievances with opposite party. But neither the product delivered nor amount refunded. Ext. A1 proves that complainant had paid the amount for product. But the opposite party failed to deliver the product even after collecting the price amounts to unfair trade practice. Due to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party, the complainant had undergone huge loss and severe mental agony. The opposite party is bound to compensate the loss and agony undergone by the complainant.
In the absence of rebuttal evidence, opposite party is bound to deliver the product or to refund the price of the stretch film with interest and cost. But considering the facts of this case and the negligence shown by opposite party to the complaint registered by the petitioner, we holds that opposite party has to refund the price of the product with 9% interest from the date of purchase 22/3/2023 till payment with compensation and cost. Due to the latches and unfair trade practices on the part of opposite party, the complainant was constrained to wait one year for the product after paying the price. This is gross deficiency in service. Considering the loss and mental agony undergone by the complainant, we holds that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is a reasonable compensation in this case. The complainant is also entitled for cost of litigation of Rs. 3,000/-.
Therefore the complaint is partly allowed, directing opposite party to refund Rs. 5,428/- (Rupees Five thousand Four hundred and Twenty Eight only) with 9% interest from 22/3/2023 till payment with a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and a cost of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1 – Invoice
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
JJ/
