SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in-after called as the “Act”) against the O.P alleging deficiency in service with a prayer for compensation.
2. The case of the complainant, in a nut-shell, is that he ordered a Smart Watch (One Plus Nord) from the O.P on 30.9.2023 on payment of Rs.3,999/- through UPI mode which was delivered by the O.P on 3.10.2023 to him. After seeing the received product, it was found that the same was not the actual product which he has ordered. So, the complainant cancelled the order and returned that parcel through the agent of the O.P on 14.10.2023. The O.P assured that soon after receipt of the booked item, the deposited amount would be returned. But in the meantime, one month has been elapsed, but the complainant has not received back his money. Hence, this case.
3. In the present, although the notice was issued through registered post against the O.P, he did not receive the same and the same returned back with an endorsement “refused”. Therefore, the O.P was set ex parte.
4. To substantiate his case, the complainant has filed the tax invoice vide order No.406-8847083-2272340 dated 30.9.2023 which disclosed that the complainant had ordered One Plus Nord Watch and paid Rs.3,999/- in favour of the O.P (Annexure-1). Refund invoice (Annexure-2) shows that till 9th October, 2023 the returned article was not received by the O.P. The information about return shipment (Annexure-3) shows that the carrier of the O.P has picked up the item from the complainant on 6.10.2023 and on 14.10.2023 at about 7.56 PM the return article was arrived at its location.
5. On perusal of the above documents (Annexure-1 to Annexure-3), it appears that the complainant had ordered One Plus Nord Watch on 30.9.2023 from the O.P and Rs.3,999/-, the cost of that watch, was also paid by the complainant on the same day to the O.P through online. As the complainant did not satisfied himself with the product received by him, he returned the said article to the O.P on 6.10.2023 which was received back by the O.P on 14.10.2023. But it is alleged by the complainant that the cost of that product amounting to Rs.3,999/- has not yet been received by him which was assured by the O.P to be returned on receipt of the returned article. In this case, as it appears, the O.P did not appear in this case to challenge the testimony of the complainant. Thus, the solitary evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant remains unchallenged, thus it can be used against the O.P. The very fact in the present case is that the O.P refused to receive the notice of this Commission and not even taken any initiative to solve the issue which itself indicates that the O.P is guilty of selling adulterated product and consequent deficiency in service by his negligent attitude in attending to the complainant on the matter which is brought to its notice, which otherwise attributes a deficiency in service towards the complainant. Therefore, the O.P is liable for the compensation, as prayed by the complainant.
O R D E R
In the result, as it has been already observed, the O.P is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,999/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 30.09.2023 till its realization together with a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, harassment & litigation cost to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the same through the process of law.
Pronounced in the Open court of this Commission, this the 18th day of November, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
