Complainant Mrs. Sulakshna has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to repay/return the amount of Rs.19,456/- alongwith some extra delivery charges, alongwith interest @ 20% per month from the date of receiving the same till the date of actual payment. Opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation suffered due to unnecessary physical and mental harassment alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she is running a cloth house under the name and style of GURU NANAK CLOTH HOUSE at her village Kahnuwan, Gurdaspur for livelihood and her family. The opposite party no.1 i.e. M/s.Lucky Fashion are advertising through online at YOU-TUBE for their products and showing products of some good quality and less in price and are alluring/inspiring lots of people to purchase their products. Complainant has next pleaded that she made an order for purchase their Suits/products and the same was captured by opposite party no.1 vide its invoice no.801 dated 2.11.2020 for Rs.19,456/- and delivered the same products/suits through the service of opposite party no.2 at her home address. She purchased the same for a sum of Rs.19,456/- alongwith some extra delivery charges, from the opposite parties, that she shocked and stunned, when she opened the wrappers of the suits and she found that some inferior quality products/suits, mismatch of its colors, some defective pieces, which were less in measurement in its length i.e. 2 meter instead of 2.5 meter, with heavy price comparison to market rate of the same suits, have been delivered by the opposite parties. She has next pleaded that after receiving the same product, she immediately contacted to the opposite party no.1 and asked about the return of the same and to refund the amount, which was received by the opposite party no.1 from her with fraudulent way. Opposite party no.1 also asked her to return the same but failed to assure for repayment of the amount and opposite partyno.1 failed to refund/ repay the amount received by them with illegal and fraudulent way from her till date besides so many requests. The act of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and also shows deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.
3. Notice issued to opposite party no.1 had been received back with the report of 'Refusal. Refused report of service conveys that opposite party no.1 had been served but it was intentionally evading the service of the notice. Case called several times, but none had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.1. Hence, opposite party no.1 was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order 4.8.2021.
4. On 7.4.2021 Sh.Bharat Aggarwal Adv.had appeared on behalf of opposite party no.2 and filed vakalatnama and date was fixed for written reply. Neither costs of Rs.500/- deposited nor written reply to the main complaint filed by opposite party no.2. Ld. Counsel had already availed many opportunities for this purpose and defence of opposite party no.2 was struck off vide order dated 24.9.2021.
5. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed her own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5.
6. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of counsel for the complainant; oral arguments advanced by their respective counsel and have also appreciated the evidence produced on record with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the complainant for the purposes of adjudication of the present complaint.
7. As detailed above, complainant purchased certain items as per tax invoice placed at Ex.C-2 from opposite party no.1 and paid Rs.19,456/-. It is alleged by complainant that same has been found to be of inferior quality. Complainant returned all the items back to opposite party no.1 as directed by him but opposite party no.1 has not reimbursed the amount paid to the complainant. Further it is argued by ld. counsel of complainant that opposite party no.1 has refused to return the payment to the complainant.
8. From the evidential part, it is proved that the complainant time and again approached opposite party for removal of her grievance but was unnecessarily harassed by opposite party which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The opposite party did not bother to appear in the Commission and prefer to proceed exparte vide order dated 20.09.2021 and also failed to satisfy the complainant and also did not care to contest the claim of the complainant and rebut the evidence led by her as aforesaid and as such it can be concluded without any hesitation that either opposite party admit the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter. In this way, the evidence led by the complainant goes unrebutted and unassailed.
9. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that supply of inferior quality product to the complainant and further the denial of the refund to the complainant inspite of return of the items back to opposite party no.1 amounts to be deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party no.1.
10. In view of the aforesaid discussion in consideration of facts and circumstance of the case, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party no.1 is directed to refund Rs.19,456/-, amount paid by complainant with 6% interest from the date of payment till its realization within 30 days on receipt of certified copy of order. Opposite party no.1 is further directed to pay lumpsum amount of Rs.5,000/- as costs of harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant.
11. The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.
12. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned.
(Naveen Puri)
President
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
August 05, 2022 Member
*MK*
