DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                                                   Complaint no. 414                                                                                        

                                                               Instituted on:  17.08.2017                                                                                   

                                                               Decided on:    15.01.2018

Gaganjot Singh son of Sh. Sukhjiwan Singh resident of F-132, Officer Colony, Sangrur.   

                                                …. Complainant.      

Versus

1. Jabong.com Novarris Fashion Trading Private Limited Plot No.82-A, Sector 18 Gurugram ( Haryana) -122015, through its Managing Director.

2.       Ravenna Fashion Private Limited, Plot No.54-B, Sector 18, Gurugram (Haryana)-122015, through its Managing Director.

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:       Shri Naresh Juneja, Advocate                          

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.1     :         Shri Sumir Fatta, Advocate.                           

FOR OPP. PARTY NO.2     :         Exparte.

Quorum

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg,  Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

ORDER:  

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Gaganjot Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he  purchased one T-Shirt of hummel brand ( Rs.1051/-)  and one black short of Jack and Jones Brand ( Rs.713/-) from the mobile APP of OP no.1 vide order ID no.170416677160059 on 16.04.2017  and paid sum of Rs.1794/- .  After two days, due to low quality the complainant returned the black short within one week but no amount was refunded to the complainant .  After checking the  account of the complainant,  the executive told the complainant that  your mobile  number and email id have been matched properly but your name is not being matched with our record. Thereafter the complainant requested the OPs so many times to refund the amount  but OPs failed to refund the said amount in the account of the complainant. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.713/- alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.20,000/- deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,

iii)   OPs be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Notices were sent to the OPs but none has appeared for the OP no.2 despite service. As such OP no.2 was proceeded exparte.

3.             In reply filed by OP no.1, legal objections on the grounds of maintainability, cause of action and jurisdiction have been taken up. It is admitted that black short  had been successfully returned within one week and Rs.713.6 was refunded  to the complainant to his phone Pe Wallet account on 22.04.2016. When the amount was already refunded to the complainant on his Phone Pe account the question of the complainant calling the OP does not arise. The OP no.1 has alleged that  the complainant himself has provided the details of his Phone Pe account. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1.  

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP no.1 has tendered documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/2and closed evidence.

5.             It is an admitted case of the OP no.1 that  complainant had returned black short successfully within one week but  it has been alleged by the OP no.1 that an amount of Rs.713.6/- was refunded  to the complainant to his Phone Pe Wallet account on 22.04.2016 with Marchant Transaction ID 170420266881313 but  it is specific case of the complainant that no amount was refunded to him till today.  To prove his case, the complainant has produced on record copy of email dated 16.05.2017 Ex.C-1, copy of account detail Ex.C-3,  copy of order pickup receipt Ex.C-6.  The complainant has also produced on record copy of  account statement  Ex.C-12 which shows that no amount has been received by him from the OP no.1.  The complainant has also produced on record copy of PhonePe  Wallet  Ex.C-3 which also shows that  the balance in the account is Rs. Zero.  On the other hand, the  OP has not produced on record any document which shows that  amount of Rs.713.6 has been refunded by the OP no.1 to the complainant through  PhonePe Wallet account on 22.04.2016.

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we feel that the complainant has fully proved his case. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund  amount of Rs.713/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- on account mental pain agony and harassment and litigation expenses.       

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                      

                Announced

                January 15, 2018

                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Sarita Garg)  (Sukhpal Singh Gill) 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Member                            Member                        President