SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

     This is a  complaint filed  by the complainant U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite party   to refund the value of mobile phone worth Rs.9,999/- along with  Rs.20,000/- as compensation  for mental agony of the complainant and cost for the deficiency of service on the part of OP.

The case of the complainant in brief :

  The complainant had purchased a Redmi 6 pro mobile phone worth Rs.9999/- from the OP on 11/6/2019 through the  mail ID of ebin1989joy@outlookcom.  The complainant received the mobile phone on 15//6/2019.  The  complainant  had purchased the product only believing the words of OP and he assured that the product is free from  all kinds of defects.  But when it is received on 15/6/2019 itself it  came to know that  there is some complaint and defect in the touch  screen of the product.  Immediately the  complainant informed the matter to OP’s customer care agency  and they checked the mobile phone.  Then as per the direction of customer care agency the complainant sent back the mobile phone to OP’s company through DTDC courier service on 24/6/2019.  On 27/6/2019 the OP received the mobile phone.  Thereafter the OP has not send new mobile phone to the  complainant.  Then the complainant telephoned the OP several times.  But the OP replied that the OP received the mobile phone  in time but to resend the delay caused due to stock limit.  Thereafter so many times the complainant telephoned the OP to send back a new mobile phone.  But the OP is not ready to sent back the mobile phone till this day.  The  complainant also states that the attitude of the OP is look worm  and insulted the complainant  also. The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony ,hardship and financial loss.  So there is  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP .  Hence the complaint.

           After filing the complaint notice was issued to opposite party. After receiving notice OP entered before the commission and  filed his written version.  The  OP contended that ASSPL operate and manages an e-commerce market place and there is no influence or interference  of listing and sale of product by third party sellers.  All sale transactions are independent transactions between the buyers and such  independent third party sellers.  The consideration for the  sale transaction was done by the complainant to independent  third party seller ie, Appario Retail  Private Limited. The OP submits that the return and refund policies are provided by the  independent third party seller.  The goods listed on the e-commerce market place operated by ASSPL are not owned by ASSPL and  neither are manufactured by ASSPL.  This OP is nowhere at fault as this OP does not  receive the amount nor make any refund also.  This OP neither offers nor involve in any refund facility to the end buyers of the product.  So the contention of OP is that there  is no deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of  OP and the complaint may be dismissed.

       On the  basis of the rival contentions by the  pleadings  the following issues  were framed for  consideration.

1 . Whether there is any deficiency  of service on the part of  the opposite parties .

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

3.  Relief and cost.

      The evidence consists of the  oral testimony of PW 1 and Exts.A1 to A7were marked . On  OP’s side no oral or documentary evidence.

Issue  No.1:   

     The complainant adduced evidence  before the commission by  submitting   his  chief  affidavit  in lieu  of  his chief examination to the  tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying  the contentions in the version.  The complainant was  examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. In Ext.A1 is the  delivery  estimate dtd. 15/6/2019.  In Ext.A2 is the view order details  dtd. 11/6/2019.  In Ext.A3 is the lawyer notice issued by the complainant to  OP dtd.21/8/2019.  In Ext.A4 is the  postal receipt and Ext.A5 is the unserved lawyer notice dtd.26/8/2019.  In Ext.A6 is the receipt of  DTDC courier service Srekandapuram branch dtd.24/6/2019.  In Ext.A7 clearly shows that the OP received  the product from DTDC courier service dtd.27/6/2019.  But after receiving the product  the OP is not resend the product to the complainant.  So the act of OP, the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  Except the version of OP no evidence or documents produced before the commission to prove their defense also. There is  deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP .  Hence the  Issue No.1 is found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2&3:

   As discussed above ,the OP is not ready to refund the value of mobile phone to the complainant. In Ext.A1 it clearly shows that the complainant paid Rs.9999/- to OP dtd.11/6/2019 and he received the mobile phone on 15/6/2019.  But the complainant re-send the product to OP on 24/6/2019.  As per Ext.A7 the OP received the product from DTDC courier service dtd.27//6/2019.   Now the OP is not ready to refund the value of mobile phone to the complainant.  So the OP is directly   bound  to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we hold that the  opposite party is  liable to refund the value of mobile phone for  Rs.9999/-  to the complainant along with Rs.8000/- as compensation for mental agony  of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.   Thus the issue No.2&3 are also accordingly answered.

               In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party  to refund the value of mobile phone for  Rs.9999/-  to the complainant along with Rs.8000/- as compensation for mental agony  of the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost  within  30 days of receipt  of this order.  In default the amount of Rs.9999/- carries 9% interest  per annum  from the date of order till realization.  Failing which the   complainant is at liberty to  execute  the  order as  per the  provisions  of Consumer Protection Act 2019. 

Exts:

A1-  Delivery estimate dtd.15/6/19

A2-order details dtd.11/6/19

A3-opy of lawyer notie dtd.21/8/19

A4- postal receipt dtd.21/8/2019

A5-Unserved lawyer notice dtd.26//8/19

A6-DTDC courier service receipt dtd.24/6/19

A7-acknowledgment receipt dtd.27/6/19

PW1-Sibi Baby-complainant

Sd/                                                             Sd/                                                   Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR