Partha Kumar Basu, Member

This complaint petition is filed u/S 34(1), 34(d), 35, 36 and 39 of the Consumer Protection Act’ 2019 at the instance of the Complainant on the allegation of deficiency of services on the part of the Opposite parties in a consumer dispute on e- Commerce.

The facts of the complaint case in a gist form is that the petitioner placed an order on 03.04.2022 for purchase of a pair of shoes for an amount of Rs. 429/- vide order ID no. 835399281099 through online shopping portal of an e-Commerce Company namely Meesho Inc. The article was received by the complainant on 09.04.2022. Being dissatisfied with quality of the article, a return request of the product was initiated by the complainant on 16.04.2022 i.e. within 7 days of receipt of the material as per return policy of the OP company. Vide their reply dated 18.04.2022 the OP company refused to accept the return of the article reasoning that an item is acceptable for return provided the customer opts within a timeframe of 7 days from the date of delivery which the OP company wrongfully assumed to be on 08.04.2022.

Hence the case. 

The complainant filed this complaint petition for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices by the OPs and prays for refund of purchase price of Rs 429/- alongwith a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and harassment alongwith litigation cost.

The complaint petition was admitted on 15.09.2022 and S/R was completed through paper publication. As neither the OPs appeared nor filed W/V, the case has been running ex-parte against OP 1 to 4. The complainant in his argument and BNA echoed the content identical to the complaint petition. The argument was heard in full on 18.08.2023 as advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant when BNA was filed.

As the case is running ex-parte against all the OPs hence the instant dispute was examined in the light of evidences and available records and documents as exhibited by the complainant alongwith complaint petition.

The main points for determination of this case are that whether the complaint is a consumer or not, whether there are deficiencies in services on the part of the OPs and whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for or not. The decisions with reasons on all the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

From the evidences it is apparent that the Complainant was sold products by the OP company. But no invoice was found annexed with complaint petition or BNA except a miniscule screen shot of an illegible and unlabelled document. Since the OP neither  contested the case nor produced any counter evidence being ex-parte, hence there is no other way out but to accept the evidence adduced by the complainant. The complainant is also falling under the pecuniary and geographical jurisdiction of this forum. As such the complainant is a consumer under the scope and meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Upon scrutiny of the evidence and exhibits, it appears that the petitioner placed order on 03.04.2022 and was supplied with the said product under dispute alongwith some other products through online shopping portal of the e-Commerce company Meesho. The order ID is not differentiable from the annexures since it appears that more than one items were purchased and a consolidated list was exhibited. The delivery note bears an ID no. 835399281099 of the disputed product. But from the screenshot of the refusal reply by the OP company, it appears that the same pertains to another article bearing ID no 693397617411. Nowhere within the four corners of this exhibit, there is any information which can be linked with the order Id of the disputed product. No cash receipt is also filed. But in any case, as the consumer has not received the refund, claim of which by complainant goes uncontested, hence there is no other way out but to accept the cogent evidences filed by the complainant.

As such, the instant case, be and the same is allowed partly ex-parte with cost.