BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 7^th DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

O R D E R

SMT.RENUKADEVI DESHPANDE, MEMBER

The complainant filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) with a prayer to direct the OPs to refund the entire amount of Rs.1,35,500/- to complainant along with interest at the market rate along with an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) as compensation to the complainant in lieu of loss of money, harassment, mental agony etc., suffered.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant intend to purchase the furniture from M/s Royal Oak Furniture, Outer Ring Road, Panathur Main Road, Opp. J.P.Morgan, Kadubersanahalli, Bengaluru-560103 on dated 15.11.2020 of

1. Taxas American wooden coffee table
2. Boston American fabric sofa 3 seater
3. Boston American Fabric sofa 2 seater
4. Ashoka Wooden sideboard
5. Marvel boss table 1.8M
6. Reager office chair

          The complainant has agreed to purchase the above mentioned furniture from the above OPs for the total sum of Rs.1,35,500/-, the complainant paid through SBI Credit card and paid the full amount of Rs.1,35,500/- dated 15.11.2020 after obtaining a bill from the OPs with order No.2021041473 and GSTIN No.29AAHCR9677C1ZT (The xerox copy of the same is enclosed) as told by sales person to block the items purchased and asked to deliver the product on 12^th December, 2020.  The above mentioned products were not delivered on the promised delivery date and there was no intimation from the company regarding the delivery.  The complainant contacted the showroom person on 14^th December, 2020 to deliver the product on 19^th December, 2020.  Salesperson asked him to call one day before to schedule to delivery. The complainant contacted sales person on 18^th December, 2020 and he told that product cannot be delivered on 19^th December, 2020 instead schedules the delivery on 20^th December, 2020. Again complainant contacted the salesperson on 20^th December, 2020 and salesperson said that sofa was out of stock and boss table was damaged and they will deliver the product after 2 days once the stock arrived, but the product was not delivered.

The complainant for the above delivery issue contacted the Manager of the showroom (OP No.1) and asked to cancel the order since delivery of products was getting postponed.  The Manager has said that they do not have any cancellation policy to get the order cancel and he asked to send a mail to customercare@royaloakindia.com  regarding the same.  The complainant detailed E-mail has been sent to the above mentioned mail-ID for the order cancellation and to initiate the refund on 21.12.2020.  There was no reply from the customer care and contacted them for the same their behaviour was so rude, and they disconnected the call, since there was no reply from customer care people for the cancellation of an order filed the complaint against the organization in NCH complaint No.2464603 and intimated the same to customer care via E-mail dated 24.12.2020.  For the above E-mail customer care people have asked the Manager Shabbir to talk to the customer on this issue with high priority, but did not get any call from the manager.  Customer care people contacted for scheduling the product delivery and complainant informed about cancellation of order and NCH complaint status.  The warehouse still scheduling the IVR call for the delivery instead of cancellation., till date there is no calls or mail communication about product cancellation status from the manager.  It is clear case of the deficiency of service and doing unfair trade practice and cheating the customer by the OPs by taking entire amount from the complainant and product has not been delivered as promised.  Complainant felt deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part OPs, hence, forced to file complaint against OPs before this Commission for necessary reliefs for his grievances.      

3. Upon issuing notice, representative of OPs did not appeared and were placed exparte.  Thereafter, the complaint was posted for filing affidavit evidence of the complainant.

4. In order to substantiate his case, complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 and complainant submitted written arguments and heard the arguments.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the complainant, the following points arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether the Complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs, if so, entitled for the relief sought for?
2. What order?

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2:As per the final order for the following

REASONS

7. Point No.1:On perusal of the pleadings of the complaint filed by the complainant, documents and the evidence placed on record.  Though notice has been duly served on Ops. Despite service of notice, OPs failed to appear and were placed exparte.  Under such circumstances, non-filing of the version and written arguments, OPs have admitted the claim of the complainant in the light of the decision reported in 2018 (1) CPR 314 (NC) in the case of M/s.Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd., vs. Aman Kumar Garg.
8. To expose of the falsity of the contents of the complaint, OPs did not file written version.  Hence, this Commission has no other go except to consider the contents of the complaint, the complainant to substantiate his case has specifically stated that the complainant has agreed to purchase the furniture, paid the full amount of Rs.1,35,500/- through SBI Credit card (HDFC – Ex.A.2) dated 15.11.2020. After obtaining a bill with order/quotations No. 2021041473, OPs promised to deliver the products to the complainant which were not delivered by OPs as per their own commitment and delivery to be made by 10^th December, 2020.
9. To establish his case, the complainant has produced quotation and tax invoice Ex.A>1 and one mail dated 21.12.2020 being sent to customercare@royaloakindia.com , the complainant cancelled the said order for reason stated above and demanded refund of his amount Rs.1,35,500/- paid through SBI credit card (HDFC) vide its TXN No.2895957807 dated 15.11.2020. Complainant filed verified affidavit evidence on 17.11.2021 along with one document.  In the instant consumer complaint in para 3 complainant states that goods are purchased by using credit card of SBI Bank instead of CITI Bank, herewith attach the CITI Bank Credit card statement for the reference marked Ex.A.5. The main and said payment transactions are being marked as Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 respectively.  Several follow-ups were made by complainant but went in vain and hence being compelled the complainant took shelter of the NCH help link vide its grievance No.2464603 dated 23.12.2020 but it also went in vain Ex.A.4.  The details are described in said grievance details and lead to contention that the OPs hence, gross lured in their service and have committed deficiency in service, it felt that OPs apathy and false promise amounts to unfair trade practice.  
10. With reference to the above, we come to conclusion that there is deficiency and unfair trade practice of the service on the part of OPs as it did not properly attend the grievance.  Any how, we placed reliance on the available materials on record, which clearly goes to show that products were not delivered on the promise delivery date and there was no intimation from the complainant regarding the delivery.  Ops who raised bill for Rs.1,35,500/-.  Accordingly directed the Ops to refund the entire cost of Rs.1,35,500/- covered under Ex.A.1. With claim of the compensation is concerned though complainant pray for refund of his money paid for purchasing furnitures by OPs, but OPs not properly respond this itself is deficiency of service, unfair trade practice and made the complainant to knock the door of this Commission to get redress his remedy.  In this context, we observed and bonafide to order to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of payment till its realization and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and also Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost, we hope the order of justice would meet sufficiently.  A several cases are disposed off against the said OPs.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
11. Point No.2:- In the result, for the following reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by the complainant allowed in part. 
2. The OP Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund an amount of Rs.1,35,500/- (Rupees thirty five thousand five hundred only) with interest at 10% p.a. from the date of payment till the date of realization to the complainant.
3. The OP Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) and litigation cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant.
4. The above order shall comply within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
5. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Directly dictated to the Stenographer and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 7^th day of December, 2021)

List of documents produced by the complainant marked as Ex.A.1 to A.3 are as follows:-