Delhi

North East

CC/147/2023

Sh. Abhishek Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Just Jaldi .Com CO. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 147/23

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

		Sh. Abhishek Kumar S/o Sh. Ramesh Chandra R/o H.No. 274, F Block, St. No. 10, Shastri Park, Delhi 110053		Complainant
		Versus
	1.     2.	M/s Justjaldi. Com Company Through its Director   M/s Trade Internet Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director At 175, Kaglwala House, Behind Mercedes Showroom, BandaraKurla Complex, Badra East, Mumbai 400098		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		30.05.23 07.06.24 21.06.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party alleging deficiency in services.

 

 

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that Complainant booked a television for sum of Rs. 8,301/- on websitejustjaldi.com on 06.01.22making online payment which was to be delivered on 07.01.22 through Opposite Party 2.Allegedly, the TV was not delivered and only invoice no. 0750529-S0001 with order no. 07505290519 was delivered. The Opposite Party No.2 told Complainant that said TV was damaged.so the Opposite Party No.2 offered to the Complainant for replacement of the above said TV with water purifier, but the Complainant refused the above-said proposal and cancelled the order. It is alleged that despite severalrequests to Opposite Party No.1 and 2 for refund of Rs. 8,301/- Opposite Parties have not refunded the amount. The Complainant had also lodged complaint on 08.01.22 to the National Consumer Helpline Portal of the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant had sent various emails to Opposite Party No.1 on various dates regarding his complaint but of no use. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 stated to National Consumer Helpline Portal on 10.03.22 that the said amount will be transferred in Complainant account but no money was transferred in his account. Thereafter Opposite Party No.1 and 2 stated to National Consumer Helpline Portal that the said amount was refunded but no amount was received by Complainant and informed that the refund amount belongs to the company wallet. It was utter shocked and surprise to the Complainant that therefund amount belongs to the Complainant account and the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 used the money as a part of refund itself.Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayedfor the cost of the TV in question of Rs. 8,301/- with pendent lite and future interest @ 24 % p.a. till its realization and Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment. He also prayed for Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties despite service of Notice. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 28.08.23.

Ex-Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant.
5. The case of the Complainant is that he booked a TV for a sum of Rs. 8,301/- with Opposite Party but the TV was not delivered and only the invoice of the said item was sent. It is alleged that Opposite Parties informed him that the subject TV had damaged and offered him water purifier instead. The Complainant refused the offer saying that he only needed TV and had to cancel the order so that he could get his refund. The grievance of the Complainant is that despite the cancellation of said order, the amount has not been refunded to him by the Opposite Party till date.
6. Since the Opposite Parties did not contest the case, they were proceeded ex-parte. The Complainant filed his Ex-parte evidence. The Complainant has relied upon various complaints lodged by him with Opposite Party No.1 on their Consumer helpline as well as emails to Opposite Party No.1.  The perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant shows that the Complainant did the transaction in question through the account of some Mr. Karunesh while the payment was done through the account of the Complainant. The Complainant has admitted in the complaint itself that Opposite Parties initially issued refund in the Company’s wallet. The Complainant alleges that the sum was not issued in his account. Since it is not the case that the Opposite Parties did not issue the refund at all. The refund was issued by the Opposite Parties in the wallet and not in the source account.In such case, it cannot be considered as a default on their part more particularly when the complainant has not shown that he opted for the refund to the source account. On further perusal of material on record, it is found that the Complainant had admitted in his email dated 25.02.22 sent to the Opposite Parties that the complainant was given transfer payment option and when the Complainant tried to process the same money was not transferred in his account and status of transaction showing as pending. The perusal of material on record shows that the complainant approached the Opposite Party helpline lodging a fresh complaint on 21.03.22 and status of said complaint shows that the amount has been refunded vide taxation ID TN-0005843 dated 04.04.22. However the Complainant has not stated or mentioned or discussed the status of the said complaint dated 21.03.22 before this Commission and preferred to keep quiet on the point.
7. The Complainant has neither rebutted the status of complaint filed on 21.3.2022 showing the status closed as amount refundedon 04.04.2022 nor has clarified the same anywhere in the pleadings.Therefore, the Complainant has failed to prove his case that the said refund is still pending as the complaint dated 21.03.22 is showing closed as per the document and status is being shown as refunded which is contradictory to the case of the complainant.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not see any deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties since the Complainant has himself cancelled the order and the Opposite Parties had issued the refund in the company’s account. The Complainant was operating from the account of some other person and on his request the Opposite Parties also provided him an option for transfer of the said amount of refund to his account which allegedly has not been refunded and the Complainant has not mentioned the status of the final/latest complaint lodged in that regards which shows the status of the complaint closed and refund issued.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not see any deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties thus the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. Order announced on 21.06.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)               Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President