Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/119/2021

Ms. Nishi Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Mahima Mahajan, Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

A.Joseph Dorairaj

13 Apr 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:19.04.2021

  Date of Reservation    : 05.04.2023

  Date of Order             : 13.04.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.119/2021

 THURSDAY,THE 13^th DAY OF APRIL 2023

Ms. Nishi Reddy,

D/o. Mr. Suneel Bommireddy,

499, 4^th South Main Road,

Kapaleeshwarar Nagar, Neelankarai,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                         .. Complainant.

 

-Vs-

Ms. Mahima Mahajan,

Proprietor,

1^st Floor, D-19, Shiniwaspuri,

Block D, Defence Colony,

New Delhi – 110024.                                                     .. Opposite Party.

* * * * *

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant         : M/s. A. Joseph Dorairaj

 

Counsel for Opposite Party            : Exparte on 13.07.2022

 

On perusal of records and upon treating the written arguments as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

 (i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to refund the amount of Rs.54,000/- towards cost of the Lehanga Dress which was delivered belatedly and different colour which was not ordered and to pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency of service, mental agony, strain and inconvenience caused to the Complainant along with cost.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1. The Complaint was looking for purchase of Lehenga for her marriage function and having come across the website of the Opposite Party claiming a reputed designer in the industry and trusting the exposure, she was attracted and intend to check the Opposite Party’s website for her purchase of Lehenga. She had found out one white Lehenga and a saree of her choice and had contacted the Opposite Party for several clarifications and had informed that her function was on 23.10.2020, for which the Opposite Party had assured and confirmed the delivery of above said products would be made on 17.10.2020 itself. Hence on the assurance and promise made by the Opposite Party she had booked White Lehenga and one saree and paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- on 25.09.2020 as directed by the Opposite Party to an account of one Ruhaan International, being their trade name. She had made all arrangements including accessories/jewelry for the white Lehenga but the same was not delivered by the Opposite Party as assured on 17.10.2020, hence she had to switch on to another garment and accessories, as she had not enough time at the brink of the function. Having known that the products would not reach by 23.10.2020 she had sought for refund of the amount paid. But only on 30.10.2020 the said products were delivered by the Opposite Party and to her shock and surprise the white colour Lehenga was not found and instead a jade colour lehenga has been delivered, hence she had claimed for refund of Rs.54,000/- towards Lehenga after adjusting a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards saree. Further, when she had questioned about the change in colour of Lehenga it was informed that online product was only a sample and the amount could not be refunded, whereas it was never informed to her about the change in colour at any point of time, which proves negligence on the part of the Opposite Party, in spite of having paid full amount for the product the Opposite Party had failed to deliver the correct product on time and unlawfully enjoyed the payment made is nothing deficiency of service and also unfair trade practice. The Opposite party had concentrated in getting the amount from her and had failed to perform its part andthe negligent act of the Opposite Party caused her great mental agony, stress, physical strain and inconvenience apart from various hardships, as she was in great dream and waited eagerly for the material that was ordered for her function. Hence the complaint.

II. The Opposite Party set ex parte:

       Notice was sent to the Opposite Party and was duly served to the Opposite Party. Despite the notice being served, the Opposite Party failed to appear before this Commission either in person or by Advocate on the hearing date and not filed any written version on their side.  Hence the Opposite Party was called absent and set ex-parte. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.

III.   The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Written Arguments,  in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-5.

IV. Points for Consideration:-

 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

2.     On perusal of the complaint, exhibits marked in support of the complaint and the contentions made, it is clear that the Complainant had placed an order of white Colour Lehenga and a saree with the Opposite Party and as agreed by the Opposite party had paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- on 25.09.2020 to their account, Ruhaan International, as found in Ex.A-1. It is also clear that the said materials were ordered to be delivered on 17.10.2020 as the assurance was found to be made as found in Ex.A-5, whatsapp communications exchanged between the Complainant and the Opposite Party. And it would also be clear that the said materials were not delivered on 17.10.2020 and till 29.10.2020 though it was assured to be despatched by 27.10.2020, as found in Ex.A-5. It would also be clear that the Opposite party had supplied and delivered a Jade Colour Lehenga as against White Colour Lehenga ordered by the Complainant, when the change in colour was questioned by the Complainant, on 04.11.2020 on verification it was confirmed that the Lehenga which was sent is not white and its Jade colour and it was their sample colour. Further Ex.A-5 when the Complainant had posted the Advertisement of Lehenga showing white colour and mentioned as purple, no jade colour was written anywhere, since white colour Lehenga was not given, the Complainant had demanded for refund and the Opposite Party had refused to refund on the pretext that there was no return or exchange policy, but insisted to place an order if the Complainant requires white colour Lehenga, would be made. Further it is to be noted that the Opposite Party had not responded to the Legal Notice dated 08.01.2021 issued on behalf of the Complainant, in spite of receipt, as evidenced from Exs.A-2 to A-4.

3.     On discussions made above, it is clear that the Opposite party had lethargically and negligently failed to deliver white colour Lehenga, in spite of assurance and promise made to deliver the same on 17.10.2020 as it was well informed the same is needed for her function to be held on 23.10.2020 and had belatedly delivered that too a different colour of lehenga which was not ordered by the Complainant of which the Complainant was made to switch on the another dress. And having received entire amount towards the materials ordered as found in Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-5 for the Lehenga and a Saree and having delivered a Jade colour of lehenga as against the Order of White colour Lehenga made by the Complainant, the negligent act of the Opposite Party clearly attracts deficiency of service on their part and thereby had caused severe mental agony and financial loss to the Complainant. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point Nos.2 and 3:-

4.     As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite party, the Opposite Party is liable to refund a sum of Rs.54,000/- towards Lehenga dress that has been wrongly supplied and to take back the same from the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony, along with cost of Rs.5000/-, to the Complainant. Though the Complainant had pleaded that the said Lehenga dress material was ordered and purchased for her marriage function, no proof has been filed to establish the actual purchase made by the Complainant, hence the Complainant is not entitled for the damages claimed in the complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.54,000/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand Only) towards cost of the Lehanga Dress wrongly supplied and to take back the same from the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards cost of the litigation to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 13^th of  April 2023.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                         MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	25.09.2020	Payment Deposit Receipt
Ex.A2	08.01.2021	Legal Notice
Ex.A3	20.01.2021	Courier Acknowledgement
Ex.A4	22.01.2021	Proof of Delivery
Ex.A5		Whatsapp Communications

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

9008.  

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT