Per Shri Pradeep G. Kadu, Hon’ble President

Fact of the case

1)      The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The briefly stated facts and contentions of the complainant in the case are as under :

2)      The complainant, Mr. S Sreenivasan ordered three furniture products (3 Seater Sofa, 2 Seater Sofa & Wooden Table) from the Opposite Party showroom at Navi Mumbai in the morning. The total value of three furniture products amounts to Rs.38,965/- The Complainant paid the amount through his SBI ATM Card on same day to the Opposite Party. On the same day in the afternoon, the Complainant cancelled one item (2 Seater Sofa) as not satisfied.  The Opposite Party agreed to refund amount of the same item which is Rs15,990/-. However, till date, refund is not processed in spite of rigorous follow up.  Due to this, the Complainant has filed this complaint before this Commission for deficiency in service. The Complainant submitted invoices, bank statements and correspondence with the Opposite Party in support of his complaint.

Contentions  of  the  Opponent

3)      Shri Sandeep Bhimekar-Advocate appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party vehemently denied the allegations of the Complainant.  It is submitted before us that the refund is generated for the return of the said goods. The Complainant has received this refund and admitted before this Commission on 6^th December, 2022 about receipt of the refund amount.

Observations and conclusions 

4)      We have perused all the records submitted before us and available in the file. It is seen that

1. The Complainant has asked refund for the return of the goods which is Rs.15,990/-. The Complainant submitted bank statement in support of his claim. We found that the said bank statement is for the period 1 July, 2022 to 31^st August, 2022
2. The Opposite Party claimed that the refund is initiated vide ARN No. 75503722191016961213228. The details and receipts produced by the Opposite Party mentions date as 10^th July, 2022

5)      Based on the documentary evidence brought on record by the Opposite Party, it is confirmed that the said refund is initiated in favour of the Complainant. Similarly, the Complainant was informed by the Opponent to charge back ARN with his banker. It was necessary for the Complainant to confirm this fact with his banker. However, from the records, we observed that the complainant has not taken any efforts to find out the facts with his banker. Further, the Opposite Party brought to our notice that the Complainant had admitted before this commission on 6^th December, 2022 that he has received refund of Rs.15,990/-. It is also observed from the record that the Complainant is continuously absent to represent his matter.  No further affidavit of evidence or written arguments filed by the Complainant before this Commission in spite of ample opportunities given. Whereas, Opposite Party  has submitted substantial evidence in his affidavit of evidence as well as in written arguments about issuing refund for the return of goods of Rs. 15,990/-. No malafides noticed in the action of the Opposite Party.

6)      In the light of above discussed evidence, it is clear that the deficiency in service cannot be attributed to the Opposite Party in absence of specific documentary evidence.  In fact, the Opposite Party brought substantial evidence to prove that refund is granted for the impugned transaction of goods returned.  Hence, no case of deficiency of service is made out against Opponent Party.  Thus, the Complainant is not entitled to any of the relief sought. In result, we pass following order.

FINAL ORDER

1)      Consumer Complaint No. CC/222/2022 stands dismissed.

2)      Parties to bear their own costs.

3)      Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.