| Complaint Case No. CC/322/2021 | | ( Date of Filing : 14 Jul 2021 ) |
| | | | 1. Mr. Shrishail Hatti | | S/o Late Gurubasappa Hatti Aged about 39 years, R/at No.14, K.No.16, Hosa Road, Near Central Jail, Naganathapura Bangalore-560100 Mob:9449234646 |
| ...........Complainant(s) | |
| Versus | | 1. Lenskart Solutions Private Limited | | R/by its Managing Director No .Property No.29/24/2, 25/2/1, 30/4/1, 5/1, 6/1, 6/1/2, Revenue Estate of Village Begumpur, Khatola, Gurugram(06)-122004. | | 2. New Lens City | | R/by its In-Charge Manager Shop No.4-C, SJR Equinox Retail, OPP: Gate3, Electronic City Phase1 Bengaluru-560100. |
| ............Opp.Party(s) |
|
|
| Final Order / Judgement | Date of Filing:14/07/2021 Date of Order:15/11/2021 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated:15th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Retd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M., B.A., LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.322/2021 COMPLAINANT: | | SRI SHRISHAIL HATTI, S/o Late Gurubasappa Hatti, Aged about 39 years, Residing at No.14, K.No.16 Hosa Road, Near Central Jail, Naganathapura Bengaluru 560 100 Ph: 9449234646 (Sri VM Venkatesh Naik Adv. for Complainant) | |
Vs OPPOSITE PARTIES: | 1 | LENKART SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, R/by its Managing Director No.Property No.29/24/2, 25/2/1, 30/4/1, 5/1, 6/1/1, 6/1/2 Revenue Estate of Village Begumpur, Khatola Gurugram (06) 122004. | | | 2 | NEW LENS CITY, R/by its In-charge Manager Shop No.4-C, SJR Equinox Retail Opp: Gate 3, Electronic City Phase 1 Bengaluru 560 100. (OP-1&2: Exparte) |
|
ORDER SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M., MEMBER - This is the complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the opposite parties (herein referred to short as op) alleging the deficiency in service in not refunding the amount received for the purchase of lens of Rs.1,633.20 to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble Commission deems fit and under circumstances.
- The brief facts of the case are that:- the Complainant purchased “Black Red full Rim Rectangle Lens” from OP on 27/04/2019 through the invoice No INVSHR25221519 by paying Rs.1,663.20/-. After the purchase, he was not satisfied with the eye glass. Hence he returned the same on 07/05/2019 and demanded OP to refund the money. OP agreed to refund the amount and gave his account No.6062000100029006 standing with Punjab National Bank. The amount was not refunded and credited to his account. The very act of OP in not refunding the amount, amounts to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP. Hence this complaint.
- Upon the issuing of the notice through RPAD, OP did not receive the notice inspite of being intimated by the postal authorities and the same was returned as not claimed. Hence this Commission held the service of notice as sufficient and placed him exparte.
- In order to prove the case, complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents, Arguments heard. The following points arise for our consideration.
- Whether the complainant has proved unfair trade practice played by the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
- Our answers to the above point are:
POINT NO.1 - IN THE AFFIRMATIVE POINT NO.2 - PARTLY ON THE AFFIRMATIVE For the following; REASONS POINT NO 1:- - On perusal of the affidavit evidence and documents produced by the complainant, it becomes clear, that the complainant purchased lens on 26/04/2019 by paying sum of Rs.1,633.20/- as per Invoice Ex P1.
- It is the specific case of the complainant that, he was not satisfied with the product and returned the aforesaid lens to OP and demanded for refund of the amount. Also issued a legal notice as per Ex P3. From this it becomes clear that complainant purchased lens by paying cost of Rs.1633.20 and returned the same to OP and sought for refund of the amount. Ex P1 is the invoice and order copy. Ex P2 is the letter written by OP to the complainant informing to provide the Bank account details for refund. The letter dated 12.06.2019 it is mentioned that refund has completed and the UTR No. is below. On 16.08.2019 complainant has written letter that inspite of the letter he has not received the said amount. He has also made the correspondence in this respect. OP has also produced online refund status wherein on 18.05.2019 through NEFT, it is mentioned that amount of Rs.1633.20 has been sent. The status is mentioned as refund complete, in the remark column wrong account details. Even on 07.12.2020 a similar NEFT details has been sent to the complainant it also mentions that successfully refunded. It is to be noted here that the complainant has produced his account extract, wherein no amount has been credited to his account on 18.05.2019 or subsequently.
- Notice is also issued to OP which is served as per postal track record. In view of this bank statement produced by the complainant, we have to hold that though OP has attempted to refund the amount, the same has not been success and hence further attempt has not been made by OP to pay the same. Hence we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs.1,633.20 has not been refunded to the complainant and the same is liable to be refunded by OP. Hence we answer POINT NO 1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
POINT NO 2:- - Complainant has sought refund of the amount paid to the OP in respect of purchase of the lens and also Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expense. Since the complainant has paid Rs.1,633.20 to purchase the lens and OPs have initiated to refund the same which attempt is failed and OP liable to refund Rs.1,633.20 along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of return of the lens i.e. 07.05.2019 till realization of the amount.
- He has also sought for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- which has not been substantiated with supporting and convincing evidence. However, one can understand the plight of a consumer who has not at been refunded the amount which he is entitle to. Hence under the circumstances if a sum of Rs.2,000/- as damages and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation expense if awarded would meet the ends of justice and hence we answer POINT NO 2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:-
ORDER - The complaint is allowed in part.
- OP No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay sum of Rs.1,663.20 to the complainant along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of return of the lens i.e. 07.05.2019 till the date of payment.
- Further OPs are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards damages as compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses.
- OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this commission within 15 days thereafter.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order. (Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 15th day of NOVEMBER 2021) MEMBER PRESIDENT ANNEXURES - Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | Sri Shrishail Hatti – Complainant |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s: Ex P1: Copy of the Invoice for Rs.1,663.20. Ex P2: Email correspondences. Ex P3: Pass book with statement Ex P4: Copy of the legal notice Ex P5: Postal track record to show that the same is delivered. 2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit: RW-1: -Nil – Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s -Nil- MEMBER PRESIDENT RAK* | |
