| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.456 of 4.11.2016 Decided on: 12.4.2017 Gurdeep Singh son of Wazeer Singh, Gali No.5, Masjid Wali Gali Vikas Nagar Seona Road, Patiala near Monday Market ( Samvar Ki Mandi) & Ucha Tibba Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus Jivi Shopee, TIN No.07770278293 Megicon Impex Pvt. Ltd. c/o Speed Asia Logistics, 146 Ground Floor B-Block, Rangpuri New Delhi 1100317( Phone 0120 4393813) …………Opposite Party Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Gurdeep Singh, complainant in person. Opposite party ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant purchased one ‘Pen Camera’from the OP through on-line booking, which was delivered through courier, vide invoice No.MIPL/ND/JV/15-16/165751 on 7th June,2016, ( order No.612337, Challan No.165575 as per detail invoice) for a sum of Rs.2090/-.It is averred that after the said purchase, when the complainant used the same, it was not working properly and the same was out of order..The complainant contacted the OP on the phone number mentioned on the retail invoice but there was no response from the OP. The complainant made a telephonic call many times but OP failed to respond. Thereafter, the complainant sent many messages to the OP but the OP failed to give any reply. It is further averred that the pen camera+ 8 gb memory card-pepper spray was within guarantee period. Due to defective product, the compolainant was unable to use the same. The complainant underwent a lot o mental agony and physical harassment and also suffered monetary loss. When the OP failed to respond, the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act( for short the Act), 1986.
- On notice, OP failed to appear despite service and was thus proceeded against ex-parte.
- In support of his case, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.
- The complainant failed to file written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the evidence on record.
- The complainant purchased one pen camera through on-line booking which was delivered to the complainant on 7.6.2016. The complainant has submitted that after the said purchase, when he used the same, he found that it was not working properly. So the complainant contacted OP on the phone number mentioned on the retail invoice, but the OP did not respond to the same. The complainant made various calls and also sent many messages but the OP did not respond. As such, the complainant underwent a lot of mental agony, physical harassment and also suffered monetary loss. The failure on the part of OP to redress the grievance of the complainant amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Also the OP failed to contest the case of the complainant, which shows indifferent attitude of the OP to redress the grievance of the complainant.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to the OP to refund an amount of Rs.2090/- the same being the price of the pen camera alongwith a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant which is inclusive of the cost of litigation.Order be complied by the OP within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:12.4.2017. NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
