BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 205/2022  Filed on 26/05/2022

ORDER DATED: 29/09/2022

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

1. This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.  After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:
2. This is a complainant filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties.  Though the opposite parties 1 and 2 accepted the notice issued from this Commission, they failed to appear before this Commission on the date fixed for their appearance.  Hence on 02/07/2022, this Commission declared the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties as ex parte.  The case of the complainant in short is that on 27/04/2022 the complainant purchased product from the 1^st opposite party and from the billing counter, it was told that the bill amount is Rs.427/-.  The said amount was paid from the complainant’s account to the 1^st opposite party through online.  The staff at the billing counter not issued the bill stating that they have not received the amount and directed the complainant to contact the next billing counter.  Accordingly the complainant approached the other counter, and to the surprise of the complainant, the staff at the counter stated that the bill amount is Rs.430/-.  When the complainant questioned the collection of excess amount, the staff printed a bill for Rs.424/-.  The said amount was paid by the complainant by using Federal Bank ATM card.  Meanwhile the complainant received SMS messages stating that Rs.427/- is debited from the complainant’s account.  Though that message was shown to the staff of the opposite parties, they stated that they have not received that amount.  A message regarding debiting Rs.427/- was also received by the complainant.  Then the staff of the 1^st opposite party stated that they will contact with head office and clarify the matter.  When the complainant contacted the opposite parties on the next day, they stated that they have not received the statement and promised that they will inform the complainant after receipt of statement.  Subsequently they have shown statement of some other dates except the relevant dates i.e., 27/04/2022.  When the complainant enquired about the statement on 27/04/2022, the opposite parties were given vague answers such as printer not working etc.  At last when the complainant approached the Manager of opposite parties, he humiliated the complainant by saying that “you do whatever you want”.  Hence alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.           
3. The evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 from the side of the complainant and the opposite parties being declared ex parte, there is no oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties. 
4. Points to be considered:

(i). Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade

practice on the part of the Opposite Parties?

(ii). Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the

(iii). Order as to cost?

5. Heard.  Perused the records.  To establish the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A6 were produced and marked.  From Ext.A1 it is evident that the complainant purchased goods from the opposite party worth Rs.424/- and the said amount paid to the opposite party vide retail invoice number 8499.  Ext.A2 shows that the complainant paid Rs.427/- to the opposite party through online transaction.  Ext.A3 discloses that an amount of Rs.427/- is debited from the account of the complainant in favour of the opposite party.  Ext.A4 is the statement of account issued by State Bank of India, which shows the transaction of Rs.427/- from the account of the complainant.  Ext.A5 is the statement of account issued by the Federal Bank which shows the transaction of Rs.424/- from the account of the complainant to the opposite party.  Ext.A6 is the SMS message regarding the payment of Rs.424/- from the complainant’s account. All these documents produced before this Commission probabilities the case put forward by the complainant against the opposite party.  As the opposite parties were declared ex parte, there is no contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant.  In the absence of any evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant.  From the available evidence before this Commission, it is evident that the complainant has purchased goods worth Rs.424/- from the opposite party.  At the same time Ext.A2 to A6 will go to show that the complainant has paid Rs.424/- and Rs.427/- respectively infavour of the opposite parties.  According to the complainant she was compelled to contact the opposite parties several occasions to point out the double payment amount by her to the opposite parties.  Though the opposite parties were convinced with regard to the double payment, they failed to repay the excess amount by saying flimsy reasons.  From the above discussions and on the basis of the evidence available before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  From the available evidence it is also evident that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite parties.  As the financial loss and mental agony to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In the above circumstances we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant.
6. In the result complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund of Rs.427/- (Rupees Four Hundred and Twenty Seven Only) to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of this proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till the date of remittance/realization.         

 A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 29^th day of September,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 205/2022

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

5. COURT EXHIBIT:

                                                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                                                     PRESIDENT