Judgment : Dt.18.1.2018

Shri S. K. Verma, President

            This is a complaint made by one Valentine Conrad, son of Joseph Conrad, currently residing at 117A Selimpur Road, Ashiyana Apartment, F1-A1, P.S.-Lake, Kolkatya-700 031 against Jasper Infotech Pvt. Ltd., a Pvt. Ltd. Company having its registered office at First Floor, Plot No.201, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase-III, New Delhi-11 0020, OP No.1 and JV EXPRESS LLP having its registered office at 7, Jaipur Estate Nizamuddin East New Delhi-110 013, OP No.2 praying for refund of Rs.30,869/- with interest @ 24% p.a. till the final payment and to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.

            Facts in brief are that purchased an LED Television model No.TH-40C2000DX 100.3 cm from the OP. On or about 2.6.2016, Complainant placed an on line order for a total consideration of Rs.30,869/- and the order was confirmed. On 7.6.2016 the said product was delivered to the residence of Complainant at about 9a.m. by the OP No.2. Complainant handed over the amount of Rs.30,869/- because Complainant had chosen cash on delivery. On 7.6.2016 the Complainant was shocked and distressed after opening the package delivered to him, it was found that the product was defective and it had several components are missing. The said product had spots on the screen which would highly diminish the viewing experience and the quality was also not good. On or about 7.6.2016, Complainant immediately requested for return of the defective product and the return request was accepted by OP No.1 on9.6.2016. On or about 7.6.2016 Complainant was intimated by OP No.1 that the defective product would be picked up by OP No.2 which would take possession of the defective product on 8.6.2016. It was assured by OP that the total amount which Complainant paid would be credited to his account of the Complainant. On 9.6.2016 the defective product was duly handed over by the Complainant to the OP No.2 and a receipt was filed. Complainant provided the bank details to the OP No.1 Company and  remained awaiting for the amount  to be refunded. On 18.6.2016 Complainant initiated another request to know the status of his refund wherein OP No.1 sent the same automated reply. On 18.6.2016 the Complainant was severely distressed to receive an electronic mail from OP stating that OP No.2 would be unable to pay the consideration money. The reason was that the return was generated after expiry of the period of seven days after the delivery of the item. On 23.6.2016 OP No.1 sent an electronic mail to the Complainant apologizing because OP No.2 did not return the product to the OP No.1 within the stipulated time. Thereafter, on 8.9.2016 Complainant received another electronic mail stating that the refund of the said amount cannot be processed as there are some internal problems and the OP No.1 will be unable to complete the Complainant’s request. So, Complainant filed this case.

            OP No.1 did not file written version and contest the case, so the case heard ex-parte. OP No.2 filed written version and in his written version and denied the allegations of the complaint and has stated that it is a Courier Service agency which OP No.1 used to deliver the product purchased by the Complainant. In addition, OP No.2 has specifically denied the allegations of the complaint and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Decision with reasons

            Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP No.2 filed questionnaire to and Complainant filed affidavit-in-reply. Similarly, OP No.2 filed evidence and Complainant filed questionnaire to which OPs did not file affidavit-in-reply.

            Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.

            On perusal of the prayer portion of the complaint petition, it appears that the Complainant has prayed for refund of Rs.30,869/-. In this regard, it appears that Complainant paid this amount on line to the OPs. Accordingly, since OP did not either repair or exchanged the defective LED TV Complainant is entitled to the refund. It is also because OP No.1 did not challenge the allegation of the Complainant by filing written version. Since OP No.2 is a Courier Service, as stated in the written version, we are of the view that OP No.2 has no liability for the deficiency of services made by OP No.1.

            Complainant has also prayed for compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-.

            Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-.

Hence,

ordered

            CC/261/2017 and the same is allowed ex-parte against OP No.1 and dismissed against OP No.2. OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.30,869/- and Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- within two months of this order, in default this amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of order till realization.