Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/126/2020

Suman Sukhija - Complainant(s)

Versus

Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjeev Dua & Seema Rani

03 Feb 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/126/2020
Date of Institution	:	08/03/2020
Date of Decision	:	03/02/2023

 

Suman Sukhija R/o House No.799, Sector 4, First Floor, Panchkula.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd., 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 through its Managing Director.
2. Lenskart Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Elante Mall, Chandigarh Store Unit No.228A, Second Floor, Elante Mall, Indl. Area-I, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant visited the OP No.2 for purchase of power spectacles on 21.10.2019. As per complainant, the OP No.2 offered a scheme to the complainant to buy one get 50% cash back on bill amount and if she buy the gold membership for Rs.600/-. The complainant checked her eye sight from the store of OP No.2. According to the scheme benefit of OPs, the complainant placed order for two spectacles of John Jacob Brand. One for her daughter with single power lens which was costing about Rs.7,500/- and second for herself with progressive lens which was costing about Rs.12,100/- and under the scheme of gold membership higher spectacles the complainant can get free, so the complainant paid Rs.12,791/- total bill amount Ex.C-1 & C-2. The complainant collected the order on 31.10.2019 from the store of OPs and when the complainant wore the spectacles she was feeling uncomfortable which remained continue and created headache to the complainant. The complainant visited the store of OP No.2 but the representative of OP No.2 insisted the complainant to wear the same for another one week and assured that the complainant will feel comfortable in one week, as such the complainant believed their version and came back but whenever the complainant wore the said spectacles she suffered from the same problem. The complainant again visited the store of OP No.2 dated 02.12.2019 and discussed her problem and returned the progressive spectacles of John Jacob which was costing Rs.12,100/- and placed the order of single power lens Ray Ban Brand with costs of Rs.6732/- and they assured the complainant that rest of the amount will be refunded (Ex.C-3). The complainant received the order on 08.12.2019. After wearing the replaced spectacles of single power lens the complainant again suffered from the same problem. The complainant number of times tried to contact the OP No.2 but nobody cared. The representative of OP No.2 denied for the refund on the pretext that they can exchange the same with other article. The complainant also sent a legal notice to the OPs dated 27.01.2020 (Ex.C-5 & Ex.C-6). Hence, this present complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complainant was well informed by their representatives that the Ray Ban Eyeglass inclusive of Lens package purchased by the complainant are not covered under the Gold Membership which she has purchased earlier for the purpose of getting 1+1 free offer. It is also submitted that the complainant was apprised by the fact that she has to pay the cost of the Ray Ban Eyeglass additionally to which she agreed (Annexure C). It is further submitted that as per the gold membership offer, the complainant was entitled to cash back voucher of Rs.5202/-. However, since the offer was not applicable to Ray Ban Eyeglass on the earlier product being exchanged she was no longer entitled to the cash back. The difference in value of the returned product and the new product was Rs.360.64/- and the amount was also refunded in the wallet of the complainant. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by the OPs.

         It is further submitted that the complainant was also called up on 19.02.2020 and informed that the as a goodwill gesture the OP had decided to issue a complete refund of the order value i.e., Rs.12,791/- and too without recalling the product from her. The complainant was asked to furnish her bank details for initiating the refund process and NEFT link was also shared for the said purpose, however, complainant did not provide the same and did not update her bank details.

3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the complainant and counsel for the OPs and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that despite paying huge amount of Rs.12,791/- for the purpose of buying spectacles for herself and her daughter, the OPs made her uncomfortable by making spectacles of different number for her. As per the complaint, she ordered the product again but again the same was faulty and so made a request of refund of the total bill amount which was denied by the OPs. Hence, the present complaint.
7.     The stand taken by the OPs is that it was the goodwill gesture that despite making changes time and again and thereafter getting the spectacles made when the complainant did not get satisfied she was offered the refund of the articles/spectacles/bill amount in question that too without recalling the product from her. But the complainant herself did not share her bank account details for the purpose of refund. Hence, no deficiency in service on their part.
8.     After going through the documents on record, it is abundantly clear from written statement and written submissions of the OPs that they offered refund of the bill amount of Rs.12,791/- as paid by the complainant vide Annexure C-2, due to the fault in spectacles. It is admitted by the OPs and they have already made offer of the refund of the bill amount without recalling the sold product so in our opinion it is very genuine offer given by the OPs. 
9.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. To refund amount of ₹12,791/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization. The complainant shall, however, keep all the spectacles in her possession as agreed upon by the OPs.
2. to pay ₹1000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

10.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
11.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
03/02/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member