DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.474/2017

QUORUM:

Judgment By: Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

JUDGMENT

By the present judgement, the commission is disposing off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency of service on the part of OP w.r.t. not returning the keyboard which was given for repairs along with Laptop. 

1. Briefly the case of the complainant is that he with his friend, named Aftab Ali,  has purchased Micromax Canvas laptop LT – 777, on 29.01.2016, against COD, for an amount of Rs.17,999/- which also works as a laptop when keyboard is attached and as a tablet when the keyboard is removed, the delivery of which was made at said friend’s house address within 3 to 4 days from the date of order. The product developed a fault within three days of purchase and it could neither be used as laptop nor as a tablet, for which several complaints were made to OP1 but no solution was provided for complete one month and finally he was told to submit the faulty product to OP2, which was accordingly given to OP2. At the time of issuance of the job sheet, the complainant has removed the keyboard as it had no glitch and handed over the device i.e. the tablet to OP2 but the complainant was asked to give the other part of the faulty product as well.  As the product was new and there would be no problem after words, the complainant also handed over the keyboard to OP2. After 30 days the product was given back to the complainant  byOP2 and after testing he found it correct but the keyboard was not handed over to him, and upon enquiry, the OP2  has denied for its possession and told the complainant that they will get clarification with respect to it and will notify the complainant, but no response was received from OP2. Complainant submits that not returning the keyboard and refusing to acknowledge their fault by OP2 amounts to deficiency of service on its part because of which he has suffered financial loss as well as unnecessary harassment, mental agony and inconvenience and prayed for refund of the amount paid of Rs. 17,999/- by the complainant along with interest @24% p.a., Rs.1,80,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and humiliation due to indifferent and arbitrary attitude of the OP2 and Rs. 10,000 towards the legal expenses.
2. Although there is no details w.r.t. legal constitution of OP1 or OP2 but Upon notice OPs failed to appear and as such were proceeded, ex-parte vide order dated 18.05.2023, hence the Commission does not have opportunity to appreciate the version of the OPs.
3. The complainant has filed his evidence along with documents in support of his case, viz. documents showing login and mail ID of the complainant through which order was placed, order details with delivery address, order confirmation details, configurations details sent to friend of the complainant, reasons for COD Delivery at complainant’s friends home address, product details, retail /tax invoice, job-sheet, tracking details, SER details, affidavit furnished by the friend of the complainant, Aftab Ali, stating that the product belongs to the complainant and authority letter from Aftab Ali. Complainant has also referred the delivery of keyboard to OP2 but no such document is filed by him on record to show that keyboard was handed over to OP2. 
4. The commission has Perused the documents on record. There are two issues to be determined by this commission, i.e. whether the complainant is a consumer under consumer protection act and secondly is there any deficiency of service, on the part of OP2?   
5. The documents on record, the email dated 29.01.2016, filed by the complainant reads that one item delivered to c/o Aftab Ali from Amazon. The said email has been sent from complainant to one ‘classic red’ which shows that it is a forward email by the complainant himself with CC to himself. The tax invoice dated 29.01.2016 shows sale of Micromax Canvas laptop LT 777 amounting to Rs.17,999/-  bearing the billing address and shipping address for one Mr Aftab Ali. Affidavit dated 04.05.2018 of Aftab Ali is also placed on record wherein it was stated that he has only taken delivery of the above stated item and the above-named complainant has purchased the online ordered goods from Micromax company and that the complainant is the original user/owner of the above stated laptop. The order details, from the Amazon site, showing the account of ‘Z’s Amazon.in’, which can be presumed that it belongs to the complainant, which mentions the order details at the shipping address of c/o Aftab Ali and the payment mode is shown as COD. However, in none of the document, the name of the complainant appeared. The complainant has also filed a clarification to that effect stating that because of old age of his mother, who is not able to move and to avoid inconvenience to her in making the payment of huge amount as the product was ordered COD, he directed for the delivery at his friend’s home address and therefore, the invoice and order details mentions as c/o Aftab Ali was mentioned. The same version is supported by the affidavit filed by the said Mr. Aftab Ali stating that the complainant is the owner of the said product and he has only taken the delivery of the said product. The commission is of the view that in view of the above stated documents this can be safely presumed that complainant is the original owner of the laptop and a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.
6. Now the other issue for determination is whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP2?   
7. The Commission has carefully gone through all the documents placed on record by the complainant, but none of documents show that the product with keyboard has been handed over to OP2 or to show that complainant has received only part product without keyboard or to show any protest from the complainant that he has not been handed over the key board. Though complainant has mentioned in his affidavit w.r.t. a complainant for key board but nothing to that effect has been actually filed by the complainant. There is absolutely nothing on record to show any type of transaction or communication with OP2.  The ‘SER’ details (The word ‘SER’ is not defined in the document as filed by the complainant) also does not reflect anything except mentioning a reference number, which is not relatable, as it does not reflect who has issued this reference number and for which product.              
8. The job sheets tracking reports as filed by the complainant show nothing about the product and only mentioned that ‘no record has been found with respect to the job sheet number N– 030666–0 216–221798617’. This is further noticed that the job sheet tracking report show a different job-sheet as provided by the complainant which is N – 0366–0216–221798617 and also not shown any reference number from the screen shot filed by the complainant.  Even otherwise none of the document establish that laptop with keyboard was given for repair or that only the laptop has been returned, and keyboard was not returned to the complainant or any complaint to the effect that laptop has been received by the complainant without keyboard.
9. As per the settled principle of law, this is upon the complainant to prove his case and in the present case, the complainant has miserably failed to establish any deficiency of service on the part of OP2.  In the absence of any documents on record pertaining to handing over the keyboard, it cannot be held that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP2.  Accordingly, the Commission is of the firm view that complainant has failed to establish his case and hence the complaint is dismissed.

Copy of the order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.    

Announced on 08.01.2024.