The Complainant is present. Judgement is ready. It is pronounced in Open Commission in 3 pages 2 separate sheet of paper.

It is ordered that CC-79 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against Op. However, without any order as to costs.

BY -    SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT

Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is a permanent inhabitant of above mentioned address which is within this Jurisdiction. There were some ritual functions in the family of the Complainant for which, on the decision of the family, the Complainant began to search online site ‘Textile info meida.com’ to purchase a few nighties for giving gift to the lady members to be present during the function. In response to the search, one Miss Mahi on behalf of the O.P. contacted the Complainant through telephone No. 9007660492 on 08.05.2021 and required about the purpose of search. The Complainant informed the representative of O.P. about the willingness to purchase some nighties. The O.P. representative shared with varieties of nighty on Whats Apps with image and rate. The Complainant gave approval for purchase of 65 pieces of nighty on Whats Apps to O.P. representative on 09.05.2021 giving details of size, colour, design, quality of cloth, etc. Before giving approval, the petitioner also verified the O.P’s GST No. towards genuineness of trade. Accordingly, a proforma invoice being No. 3090 dated 09.05.2021 for Rs. 1,22,43/- was received through Whats Apps from same representative. The Complainant made payment of the amount in two installments to the O.Ps account mentioned on the proforma invoice on the same day. The O.P. sent image of DTDC courier bill dated 09.05.2021 to the Complainant. Then Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 500/- to O.P’s account on 10.05.2021 towards part payment of courier charge as discussed. The Complainant kept on following up for delivery of parcel. On 28.05.2021 Miss Mahi sent image of a bill of a different courier named’ The professional Courier’ without making any conversation with the Complainant. The Complainant tried to contact with the representative in different ways but failed.The Complainant received two packages on 04.06.2021 through this second courier. The packages were opened same day. On opening the petitioner found that both the packages contained 65 numbers of nighty in total which was correct in quantity but none of the nighties was according to colours, print, design and quality as demanded by her. All the nighties were of some design and mostly of same colour shade and print. The quality of cloth was also far inferior to that of demanded ones. The petitioner immediately made call to the representative Miss Mahi but got no response. The Complainant texted and sent image of the nighties so re3ceived saying ‘yeh order to nahi that’. She texted back- ‘Kaalbaatkartihun’. The complainant kept on trying to contact to the representative including other members of the O.P. Company on available numbers but none responded positively. The complainant sent a complaint about the discrepancy on O.P’s 

Notice of the case was duly served upon the op, however the O.P. preferred to see that the case is decided ex-parte against it.

Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?                                            2.    Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

Decision with reasons

Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion  for sake of brevity and  convenience.

We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and evidence produced by Complainant. On appraisal of the materials on records along with bundle of facts it appears that the complainant is a Consumer in respect of the transaction made by him with the O.P. The case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

Having regards had to the facts of the case as averred in the complaint and evidence thereof we find that the Complainant/Consumer mainly has alleged that the seller/trader although was correct in maintaining the quality of the items/goods  yet he failed to maintain the colour, print, design and quality of the goods as demanded by the complainant. In law, duty of the complainant is to substantiate his allegation against the seller/trader but the complainant has failed to adduce any cogent evidence to the fact that the op failed to comply with the actual print, design and quality. There is no evidence to show that which types of order for supply of goods was placed to the seller/trader as alleged. As there is no cogent evidence in support of the allegations of the complaint against the Opposite Party seller/trader the case of the complainant cannot sustain. The complainant has failed to prove her case. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. The points for determination are disposed of accordingly.

Thus, the case fails.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

That the C. Case No. 79/2022 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the OP; however, without any order as to cost.

Let a copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant free of cost.