BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint No.:47 of 2016.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 11.03.2016.

                                                                   Date of Decision:03.03.2017

Akshat Malhotra son of Sh. Jatinder Malhotra, resident of Kothi No. 5, Board of School Education Campus, Bhiwani.

                                                                           ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Home Shop 18, Corporate Head Quyarters: 7^th Floor, FC-24, Sec. 16-A, Filmcity, Noida – 201 301, Uttar Pradesh, through its Authorized Signatory.

2. Add-SMM-Ghaziabad Apollo Fiege, Integrated Logistics Pvt. Ltd., Khasra No. 1080, Sadique Nagar, Opp. Uttam Toyota Vikas Nagar, Meerut Road, Ghaziabad – 201 010 through its Authorized Signatory.

                                                                   …...Opposite Parties. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -  Shri Rajesh Jindal, President

         Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member

Present:-   Representative of complainant.

       Sh. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate for Ops.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that the Ops are running a business through T.V. Channel under the name and style ‘Home Shop 18”  and sale different type of goods.  It is alleged that as per advertisement the complainant on 04.07.2015 order for 3 pc. Casserole set of Nayasa company through mobile no. 09416951071  and the Ops offered the abovesaid set on that date alongwith free six pieces service set.  It is alleged that if any defect would be found then the payment would be returned.  It is alleged that on 05.07.2015 the order was received by the complainant vide product code 33015057 and paid Rs. 1068/- under the cash on delivery scheme.  It is alleged that when the complainant opened the delivered box, he was too surprised that the lid of the casseroles were shorten then their actual size.  It is alleged that the complainant made a complaint to Ops but to no avail.  The complainant also sent a legal notice dated 07.01.2016 but no reply was given.  The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and economic loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, she had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.

2.                On appearance, the OP no. 1  filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands.  It is submitted that the OP no. 1 role is only to provide an intermediary platform to both the buyers and sellers to buy and sell the products on such platform.  It is submitted that the OP no. 1 facilitates both refund and replacement/return in case the consumer/complainant is unsatisfied with the product ordered from OP no. 1 or the product has been received by the complainant/consumer in damaged or in defective condition.  It is submitted that the complainant has failed to return the product back to the seller as per the terms and conditions of refund.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1  and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                OP no. 2 filed separate written statement alleging therein that the OP no. 1 needs to verify that the product has been received back and only then refund or replacement can be made as per the terms and conditions of the replacement/refund policy of the OP no. 1.  It is submitted that the complainant has never called or contacted the OP no. 1 for any concern whatsoever.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2  and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.                In order to make out his case, the representative of complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8.

5.                In reply thereto, the counsel for Ops has tendered into evidence documents Annexure R-1 to Annexure R-9.

6.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the representative of complainant and learned counsel for Ops.

7.                The representative of the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  She submitted that the lid of the casseroles were shorten then their actual size.  The complainant made complaint to the Ops but Ops did not care to the complaint.

8.                Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the complainant did not sent back the casseroles to them for the refund of the cost of the  casseroles.

9.                We have perused the record.  Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the Ops to refund Rs. 1068/- the cost of casseroles to the complainant and also to pay Rs. 1,000/- as lumpsum compensation to the complainant.  The complainant is directed to deliver the casseroles to the Ops and the Ops are directed to pay the awarded amount of Rs. 2068/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of the delivery of old casseroles. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 03.03.2017.                          

      (Rajesh Jindal)                           

President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

           (Anamika Gupta)                             

              Member