STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Anil Kumar son of Shri Ram Verma, resident of 984, Phase-II, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/complainant

V e r s u s

1.       M/s Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd., Unit No.418, Building No.2, Sector -1, Millennium Business Park, Mahape, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400710, through its Director

2.       M/s Gati Limited, Plot No.181, Industrial Area, Phase- I, Chandigarh, through its Director.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Kamal Satija, Advocate for the appellant.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 24.09.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents), as under:-

“In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

(i)       to refund the amount of Rs.2,299/- to the complainant (being the price of the package in question booked by the complainant) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 18.7.2011.

(ii)     to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.2,299/- shall carry interest @18% per annum from 18.7.2011 till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs”.

2.                        The facts, in brief, are that the complainant intended to purchase a car stereo, for his car. Accordingly, he visited the web portal i.e. www.naaptol.com, run by Opposite Party No.1.  Opposite Party No.1, offered the car stereo, with FM, MP3, USB, SD card Support, Speakers, Tweeters, 4GB branded Pen drive and Reebok Watch  inclusive of six months seller’s warranty, for a sum of Rs.2,299/-, including the cost of shipping. Finding the said offer to be lucrative, the complainant booked the said package, on 8.7.2011, with the option of paying the consideration, in cash, at the time of delivery of consignment. The complainant was assured that the consignment shall be delivered to him, within a week. On 18.7.2011, the complainant received the consignment, through Opposite Party No.2, and paid a consideration of Rs.2,299/-, to the representative of Opposite Party No.2. It was stated that when he opened the consignment, the car stereo, speakers and other gadgets, were found damaged, and were not in working condition. The complainant, immediately, rushed to the office of Opposite Party No.2, and brought all the facts to its notice. Opposite party No.2, told the complainant, to talk to Opposite Party No.1. Accordingly, the complainant had a talk with Opposite Party No.1, which assured that the amount shall be refunded to him. The complainant was advised by Opposite Party No.1, to return the consignment, in question, to Opposite Party No.2, for being forwarded to it (Opposite Party No.1). Accordingly, the complainant left the consignment, with Opposite Party No.2. Thereafter, he contacted Opposite Party No.2, which told that the consignment had been shipped back to Opposite Party No.1, by its office, on 29.7.2011.  Thereafter, the complainant made enquiries from Opposite Party No.1, about refund of the amount, but he was told that the consignment had not been received by it, and that the amount shall be refunded, immediately, on receipt of the same. It was further stated that, on account of non-refund of the amount of consignment, articles wherein were found to be damaged, despite various requests, the Opposite Parties, were not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay Rs.2,299/-, i.e. the cost of the goods/articles contained in the consignment, alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. w.e.f. 08.07.2011, till realization; compensation in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.

3.           Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, admitted the sale of the package, mentioned above, for a consideration of Rs.2,299/-.  It was also admitted that it had received the entire sale consideration for the said package. It was further admitted that the complainant informed it, about damage to the consignment, containing the goods/articles aforesaid, sent to him. It was stated that it was providing marketing platform, for products of various Companies, through its website and advertisement, in multiple-media formats, including newspapers and television channels. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.1, did not sell its products and the product offered, for sale, was of other manufacturing Company and the warranty had been issued by the manufacturer. It was further stated that even if the product was damaged, Opposite Party No.1, was not liable to refund the amount, thereof. It was further stated that, otherwise also, the consignment which was redirected, by the complainant, to Opposite Party No.2, had not been received by Opposite Party No.1, so far. It was further stated that, even on account of this reason, it was not liable to refund the amount, till the consignment was received back by it. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.              Opposite Party No.2, in its written version, stated that the consignment was handed over to the complainant, by its representative. It was further stated that there was no privity of contract between it, and the complainant, and, as such, the latter was not a consumer qua it. It was further stated that, it was only a carrier/ transporter and was having business relationship, with Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that, it only deducted necessary freight, octroi etc., being a carrier. It was further stated that, at the time of delivery, the consignment was in good condition.  It was further stated that the consignment was returned to it, on 29.7.2011, by the complainant, for being sent back to Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that the consignment was kept by the complainant, for the period from 18.7.2011 to 29.7.2011, and during the said period, the consignment might have got damaged. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

5.              The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.              After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

7.              Feeling aggrieved, against non-grant of compensation, by the District Forum, the instant appeal, was filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.              We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the admission stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

9.              The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, the complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment, on account of non-refund of the amount, of the damaged consignment, to him, by the Opposite Parties till date and, as such, he was required to be granted compensation, by the District Forum, but it failed to do so. He further submitted that by not granting the compensation, for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, on account of the acts of omission and commission of the Opposite Parties, the District Forum, fell into a grave error, and, as such, its order is liable to be modified.

10.           The value of the consignment was Rs.2,299/-. No doubt, according to the complainant, the consignment was damaged, and he returned the same, to Opposite Party No.2, which further sent the same to Opposite Party No.1. No doubt, the amount of Rs.2,299/-, which was paid by the complainant, to the Opposite Parties, was not repaid/refunded to him, by the time, the complaint was filed, and even till date, yet, it may be stated here, that the District Forum, was required to take into consideration, the facts and circumstances of the case, and, only, thereafter, it could come to the conclusion, as to whether, it was a fit case, in which the compensation should be granted, to the complainant or not. It may be stated here, that, in the instant case, the complainant was granted simple interest @9% P.A., on the amount of Rs.2,299/- w.e.f. 18.07.2011. He was also granted, cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and, in default, of payment of Rs.2,299/-, within 45 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the impugned order, the Opposite Parties were also directed to pay penal interest @18% P.A.. By granting normal interest @9% P.A., and penal interest @18% P.A., in our considered opinion, the District Forum, took into consideration, the relief of compensation, which was claimed by the complainant, in the complaint. It is settled principle of law, that the Consumer Foras, are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the cost of service providers. The relief granted by the Consumer Foras, must be in accordance with the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Consumer Fora comes to the conclusion, that the interest granted to the consumer, by it, would take care of the compensation, claimed by him, then certainly, no separate compensation can be granted to him. In our considered opinion, for the paltry amount of Rs.2,299/-, paid by the complainant, for the consignment, the goods wherein were found to be damaged, he was duly compensated by way of granting him normal interest @9% P.A., as well as penal interest @18% P.A. It was, under these circumstances, that no separate compensation was granted by the District Forum. In our considered opinion, the complainant was not entitled to any separate compensation, as the interest awarded to him, was sufficient, to take care of the same (compensation). The order of the District Forum, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission, and, as such it does not deserve to be modified.

11.           No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.

12.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

13.           Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

03.12.2012

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg