CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X

GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI

Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel)

New Delhi – 110016

    Case No.87/2022

UMESH PANDEY

ADVANCED AUTOMATION

1/3 DSIDC SHED, TIGRI

P.O. SANGAM VIHAR

NEW DELHI 110080                                                    …..COMPLAINANT

Vs.   

M/s KRISHNA ELECTRICAL DRIVES & AUTOMATION

BE-131, STREET NO. 3, HARI NAGAR,

NEW DELHI - 110064                                                 .…..RESPONDENT

Date of Institution-07.04.2022

Date of Order-09.02.2024

O R D E R

RITU GARODIA-MEMBER

1. The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP in not providing the product against which the payment was received and thereafter, not refunding the entire amount.

2. Brief facts as stated in the complaint are that the complainant paid Rs.24,780/- to OP towards the cost of VFD ( Variable  Frequency Drive) against invoice no KEDA/0001/2020-21 dated 20.06.2020. It is alleged that after accepting the money from complainant, OP acknowledged that the said product i.e. VFD is not available. OP failed to refund of the money paid by the complainant. On 27.06.2020, OP accepted his mistake and assured the complainant about refund amount on 29.06.2020.

3. The complainant contacted OP, Delhi Police and Jago Grahaak through phone calls and emails for requesting refund. However, a complete refund was not made. The complainant prays for refund of Rs.2,380/- along with interest @18%, and Rs.30,000/- and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and litigation expenses.

4. A Notice was duly issued and served upon OP, yet despite such service, the OP failed to appear as required. OP was proceeded Ex-parte on 01.12.2022.

5. The complainant filed evidence by way of affidavit. The complainant has annexed invoice details, whatsapp message, transfer details and statement of account for amount received.

6. This Commission has considered the pleadings and material on record. The invoice dated 20.06.2022 shows that a product namely “Fc-51 Micro AC Drive Danfoss Make” was billed for Rs.24,780.00/-.

7.  Whatsapp chat by OP to complainant is as follows:

Dear Sir,

You have ordered a Danfoss VFD to our company. During the order confirmation it was showing in stock but actually it was other rating VFD (Physically checked by Store Incharge).

So we are apologize for inconvenience to you and your amount will be refund on Monday.

Neeraj Tyagi

Director, KEDA Group.

8. The Complainant has provided supported documentation, including invoice and transfer details indicating a payment of Rs.24,780/- made to OP on 20.06.2020. The complainant has submitted a statement of account, revealing that only Rs.22,400/- has been received from the OP. It is evident that there is a discrepancy of Rs.2,380/- (24,780-22,400) in the amount received by the complainant. The OP has not offered any explanation for the deduction of Rs.2,380/- despite accepting the payment, confirming the transaction and failing to provide the product specified in the invoice.

9. Hence, we find OP guilty of deficiency in service and direct it to refund:

1. To Pay Rs.2,380/- along with 9% interest from the date of complaint till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.1,000/- as compensation towards mental torture and physical inconveniences.
3. To pay Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.

10. File to be consigned to record room.  Orders to be uploaded and complied with within 30 days of the date of order.