Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/1065/2019

M/s Fashion Tweet - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s R.P. Packers - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Kumar, Ravinder Kumar

14 Oct 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                    ========

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/1065/2019
Date of Institution	:	18/11/2019
Date of Decision	:	14/10/2020

 

M/s Fashion Tweet, through its Sole Proprietor Shri Gitesh Kumar son of Shri Ramesh Gupta, Shop at SCO 2241, Mariwala Town, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

 

M/s R.P. Packers, through its Sole Proprietor Shri Bajrang Rain, Ward No.15, 681/A, Harmilap Nagar, Baltana – 140604.

…… Opposite Parties

QUORUM:	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	DR.S.K.SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	Opposite Party ex-parte.

 

Per Surjeet Kaur, Member

 

1.         Adumbrated in brief, the facts necessary for the disposal of the instant Consumer Complaint are, the Complainant, who is running a Garments Shop for earning his livelihood, ordered 2000 paper carry bags with brand name on the agreed rate and accordingly, paid a sum of Rs.20,160/-, inclusive of GST, to the Opposite Party vide invoice dated 10.12.2018. However, when the material was supplied, the Complainant found the same to be of inferior quality and different than what was shown by the Opposite Party. To this effect, a number of complaints were made to the Opposite Parties telephonically. But, when nothing positive could come out, a legal notice dated 03.08.2019 was served upon the Opposite Parties, which also failed to fetch the desired results. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has filed the instant Consumer Complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         However, nobody appeared on behalf of Opposite Party despite service, therefore, it was proceeded ex-parte.
4.         Complainant led evidence.      
5.         We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the entire record with utmost care and circumspection.
6.         Per pleadings of the Complainant, against the order of 2000 pieces of paper carry bags, an amount of Rs.20,160/- with GST was paid to the Opposite Party. This fact is proved from the invoice dated 10.12.2018 issued by the Opposite Party, which accounts for Annexure C-1.
7.         It is the case of the Complainant, Opposite Party showed different material than supplied and despite making numerous telephonic complaints it took no remedial measures to settle the dispute. Perusal of the record further shows that Complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 30.08.2019 upon the Opposite Party to refund the amount paid, along with interest, but the same failed to fructify.
8.         Significantly, Opposite Party did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the Opposite Party draws an adverse inference against it.
9.         The non-appearance of the Opposite Party shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
10.                 In these set of circumstances, it is established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The Opposite Party has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice as it ought to have refunded the amount to the Complainant forthwith, which it miserably failed to do and propelled this unwarranted, uncalled for litigation upon the Complainant.
11.         At any rate, the Opposite Party even did not bother to redress the grievance of the Complainant despite having approached for the same by the Complainant time and again. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party.
12.         For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed:-

[a]    To refund Rs.20,160/- to the Complainant;

[b]     To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice.

[c]     To also pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

13.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c]. 
14.         The Complainant shall return the material in question to the Opposite Party after the compliance of the order.
15.         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

14^th Oct., 2020

                        Sd/-  

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”