BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.423-2013

DATED ON THIS THE 8^th January 2016

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act, against the opposite party, seeking a direction to refund and to pay compensation for a sum of `25,000/- towards mental agony and monitory loss and such other reliefs.
2.     The complainant attracted by the advertisement published in the newspaper relating to a “Folding cup board” with free shoe rack, for a sum of `1,999/- and freight charges of `399/-, placed an order on 21.06.2013 and received the products on 28.06.2013 by paying `2,398/-.  The complainant was shocked to see the products inside the box as they were in poor state and while trying to fix the cub board, the same was tore off due to poor quality.  The complainant informed the opposite party over telephone and expressed her dissatisfaction about the product and demanded for refund of the amount paid.  Upon failure to refund the amount, the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony for the unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, filed the complaint and sought for the reliefs.
3.     The opposite party admitted in their version, the purchase of the folding cub board and receipt of the payment.  The opposite party contended it has no liability for the poor quality of the product as they are not the manufacturer and it is doing only the agents work between the buyer and the seller.  The opposite party denies the allegations with regard to quality of the product as baseless and made without any evidence.  Further, it also contended that in absence of the confirmation from the vendor, it cannot take any steps to refund or replacement.  As such, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4.     To prove the facts alleged, the complainant, filed the affidavit and produced several documents.  The opposite party also filed its affidavit.  Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  On perusal of the material on board, the matter posted for orders.
5.     The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in non-refund of the amount paid towards goods and thereby she is entitled for the reliefs sought?
2. What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The product purchased on payment of `2,398/- is admitted.  The opposite party also admits that it is providing a platform for marketing of the products manufactured by various manufacturers.  The opposite party company is a service provider between the vendor and the buyer and it is not engaged in the sale, manufacture and any after sales service.  However, the opposite party’s limited responsibility and liability is also not disclosed in the advertisement.  The advertisement in the newspaper does not disclose the address of the vendor/manufacturer.  As per the contract of agency, in absence of the undisclosed principal/vendor, the entire liability falls on the agent only.  The opposite party ought to have put its effort in resolving the problem between the vendor and the buyer.  Remaining silent over the issue, it appears the opposite party is trying to safeguard the interest of manufacturer/vendor, thus the opposite party is liable to refund and to pay the compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Further, the terms and conditions not disclosed in the advertisement and the defence of not returning back the defective products to the unknown vendor for replacement of product with new one or for refund is unjustified.  Accordingly, the   point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
8.    Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, we proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to refund the cost of the product i.e. `2,398/along with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of purchase, i.e. 28.06.2013, to the complainant, within 30 days of this order.
3. The ops is entitled to collect the defective product from the complainant on payment of the said amount.
4. The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of `3000/- towards compensation for mental agony and monitory loss and `1,000/- towards litigation expenses, to the complainant, within 30 days of this order.
5. In default, the opposite party shall pay penalty of `50/- per day to the complainant, until compliance is made.
6. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite parties shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
7. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 8^th January 2016)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                           (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER