BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no. 575 of 2022      

                                                          Date of Institution: 15.09.2022

                                                          Date of Decision:   21.09.2023. 

Om Parkash Bhati aged 63 years son of Sh. Kishan Chand, resident of House No. 1283, Sector-20, HUDA Part-II, Sirsa.

                                                                   ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

IB MONOTARO PRIVATE LIMITED, Khasra no. 26/15 village Fatehpur, Teh.Tauru, District Nuh Haryana- Pin- 122105.

                    ……… Opposite party.

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT

SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER            

SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………MEMBER

Present :      Complainant in person.

Opposite party already exparte.

ORDER:-

          In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant has been retired from the post of Manager from ICICI Bank and after retirement he has taken 8.5 acres of land on lease and for agricultural work he was in necessity of a power triller so that he can save his labour and time. That opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP) has got registered itself on official website and provides every type of services to the citizens of India/ customers and as such customers keep faith on the op and taking advantage of this, the op is doing cyber crime with the public. It is further averred that on 20.06.2022 complainant had seen advertisement of a product namely Power Triller (cultivator) on his mobile and thereafter he clicked on the said add and gone to the official website of the op. Thereafter he contacted on the mobile number 84484 49073 provided on the official website about the said product upon which female employee of the op told him that the product which he is purchasing will fulfill all his requirements and it is a good product and he should purchase the said product and also disclosed to him that he will have to make advance payment through online after going on their official website. It is further averred that on 22.06.2022 for the said product, the complainant made advance payment of the amount of Rs.41,092.37 through online to the op through his credit card bearing No. 4375 5128 1786 4005. That after payment on 23.06.2022 the op’s company got delivered aforesaid product through transport company namely Spoton logistics Pvt. ltd. at his house. It is further averred that on 26.06.2022 complainant used the above product in his field and came to know that said product is duplicate and could not be used for agricultural work and as such op has committed fraud with the complainant. That thereafter the complainant against talked with the female employee of the op about complaint of said product and got registered his complaint upon which said female employee of op told him that the products which are sold by them are accurate and if same works or not they and their company are not responsible for the same and thereafter she refused to talk with him. That complainant made repeated requests to her for return of the said product and to make refund of his payment. It is further averred that complainant could not sow crop of cotton in his field and due to late sowing of the seeds which was purchased by him for Rs.3875/-, the seed did not germinate and as such complainant could not sow crop in his four acres of land and has suffered loss of more than rupees two lacs. That due to non working of the said product the complainant could not destroy the unwanted growth in the garden of “Morringa” in 8.5 acres of land and has suffered heavy financial loss because complainant got conducted the said work from labour at very high rates by spending more time and he has to incur an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the labour. That complainant has also to pay interest of the amount of Rs.6000/- on the amount of product from 22.06.2022 and in this way the op has caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking refund of the amount of Rs.41092.37 alongwith interest amount of Rs.6000/-, also refund of the amount of Rs.3875/- spent on purchase of cotton seed and to pay amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as he has suffered loss of cotton crop and also to make refund of the amount of Rs.40,000/- spent by him on labour and also to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and also to pay amount of Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses.

 2.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party through registered cover but none appeared on behalf of op despite delivery of notice and after stipulated period, op was proceeded against exparte.

3.        The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. tax/ retail invoice Ex.C1, credit card statement Ex.C2, item bar code for delivery Ex.C3, logistic delivery receipt Ex.C4 and tax/  retail invoice Ex.C5.

4.        We have heard complainant and have gone through the case file carefully.

5.        It is proved on record from tax/ retail invoice Ex.C1 that complainant has purchased Agri Pro Power Cultivator from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.41,092.37 through online and on 22.06.2022 said product was delivered to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that said cultivator supplied by op is a duplicate product and is not working for any agriculture work but however, complainant has not placed on file any expert/ mechanic report to prove the fact that said product supplied by op is a duplicate one and is not working for any agriculture work. The complainant has not proved on record through any other cogent and convincing evidence that said Power Tripper (cultivator) is defective. Further more, the complainant has alleged that op is doing cyber crime with the public and has also committed fraud/ cheating with the complainant and as such present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and for the allegations of fraud/ cheating, the complainant has to approach appropriate authorities and as such this complaint deserves dismissal.

 6.       In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is hereby dismissed being not maintainable but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.     

Announced:                   Member       Member               President,

Dated: 21.09.2023.                                               District Consumer Disputes

                                                                          Redressal Commission, Sirsa.