Delhi

North

CC/70/2022

SAURAJ YADAV - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S OCTAVE SHOP - Opp.Party(s)

11 Mar 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.:70/2022

 

Sh. Sauraj Yadav

S/o Sh. D. B. Yadav,

Chamber No. K-65,

Tis Hazari Courts,

Delhi-110054.                                     …                                   Complainant

 

                                                          Vs

 

M/s Octave Shop

Through its Proprietor

Shop No.708,

Mukherjee Nagar,

Delhi-110009.                                    …                                    Opposite Party

 

ORDER

11/03/2024

 

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.                 The present complaint has been filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that, the complainant had purchased one Jacket (2xLarge 1.11 meter) from the opposite party on payment of sum of Rs.3,499/- through Paytm on 19.12.2021. At the time of purchasing the said Jacket, the opposite party had assured for the quality of the above said jacket in all respect.  However, just after three days, when the complainant wore the jacket, he found that some bubbles/fibre are there in the jacket.  Thereafter, the complainant visited the opposite party for complaining this issue but he did not entertain the complaint of the complainant about the defective product and flatly refused to return the money.

 

2.                 It has been alleged that the opposite party is indulged in unfair trade practices by selling defective products in order to deceive customers to cause wrongful gain to itself and  for deception, fraud, breach of trust, the opposite party is liable to be prosecuted in court of law, for which the complainant reserves his right to initiate appropriate proceedings.  The opposite party is, thus, liable not only to replace the said defective Jacket with a genuine/good of same brand/size but also to compensate the complainant to the extent of Rs.20,000/-, for the embarrassment, mental pain and agony.

 

3.                 It has further been alleged that the complainant through his counsel sent a legal notice dated 25.01.2022 to the opposite party which was duly served on 29.01.2022 but the opposite party did not respond. The complainant is the consumer of the opposite party but the opposite party has failed to discharge its service which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party has harassed the complainant which have resulted into mental agony. Therefore, the complaint has been filed praying for directions to OP to:-

 

1. replace the Jacket with its original one having same quality;
2. pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the harassment, mental agony and tension suffered by the complainant due to the abovesaid illegal acts of the opposite party;
3. Pay Cost of the proceeding.

 

4.                 The Complainant has also filed copies of legal notice, speed post receipts and tracking report, Affidavit u/s 65-B of Evidence Act, payment receipts  and photographs of the product.

5.                 Accordingly, notice was issued to the OP to defend the complaint before this commission but the OP neither appeared nor did send any communication despite service of the notice. Since the OP chose not to appear despite service, has been proceeded Ex-parte.

6.                The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and led oral arguments also. The OP has also preferred not to participate in the proceedings of oral arguments. Therefore, the complaint has been examined on the basis of the documents/evidences and material available on records. Since the OP has chosen not to contest the allegations levelled in the complaint despite service, it is considered as deemed acceptance of the allegations of deficiency of service and harassment to the complainant by the OP.

7.                In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service  on the part of the OP in terms of the deficiency defined in the Act which includes any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer.   Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP to pay to the complainant:-  

a.       Rs.3499/- (Rupees Three  Thousand four Hundred Ninety Nine Only)) with interest @9% per annum from 19-12-21 till the date of payment within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

b.       pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand  only)  as compensation for the harassment &  mental agony suffered by complainant.

8.                 It is clarified that the aforesaid amount as directed above at para 7 (a) to (b) shall be paid by the OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.  The Complainant shall handover the product to the representative of the OP after receipt of the amount ordered above.

 

9.                 Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                                          HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

Member                                                                 Member       

                                              DCDRC-1 (North)                                                       DCDRC-1 (North)

 

                                                           

DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

                                        President

                                          DCDRC-1 (North)