Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/475/2023

TWINKLE NEGI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S SANAM COLLECTIVE - Opp.Party(s)

ANSHUL JINDAL

06 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/475/2023
Date of Institution	:	4/10/2023
Date of Decision	:	6/02/2024

 

 

Twinkle Negi aged 25 years D/o Sh. Hukum Singh Negi R/o H. No. 442, Ground Floor, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh.

 

Complainant

 

Versus

 

1. M/s Sanam Collective, through its Proprietor, Shop No. 201-202, Sadguru Plaza, Beside Kamlaba Multispecialty Hospital, Near Akhand Anand College, Singanpore, Katargam, Surat-395004.

 

2. M/s Alizeh Collective, through its Proprietor, Shop No. 211, 2nd Floor, Sadguru Plaza, Near Laxmi Dairy, Singanpore, Katargam, Surat-395004.

 

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Anshul Jindal, Advocate for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  OP No.1 is running a business under the name and style of ‘ Sanam Collective’  to provide a variety of women wear and the customers can place their orders through their instagram  page  through direct message  and on 25.6.2023, being allured by the  products shown at the said instagram page  by OP No.1,  , the complainant  contacted OP No.1 through direct  message on instagram and enquired  about one dress, price whereof told to be Rs.1999/-  with return policy  in case of any defect, quality  issue  or damage  to the product with assurance of full refund within 15 days  from the  date of request made  for return or exchange. Accordingly, on 27.6.2023 the complainant placed an order of dress (hereinafter to be referred as subject product) with  the OP No.1,   regarding which she received a confirmation call  from OPs. On 3.7.2023 the complainant had received   the subject product which was shipped by OP No.2  and for  which the complainant had made online payment of Rs.2000/-. However, when the parcel was unboxed by the complainant she was astonished to see that the subject product received by her was totally different from the one which she has ordered.  Accordingly, the complainant sought return of the  product with refund of the amount paid by the complainant and OP No.1 assured the complainant that  their delivery boy will pick up the order for return process within 15 working days.   Since 4.7.2023  the complainant is trying to contact OPs  in regard to  her return process  and status of refund but , the OPs have been neglecting complainant and are not bothering to give any satisfactory response.   The complainant repeatedly enquired about the return  and refund process and on 6.8.2023 OP No.1  intimated the complainant that the due to some issue, return is not possible and if the complainant  is willing to get her refund she will have to send the returnable parcel through courier  to OP No.1 at their address  and for which expenses have to be borne by the complainant. The copy of conversation between the complainant and OP No.1 is annexed as Exhibit C-1 and copy of delivery details alongwith payment details is annexed as Exhibit C-2. Since the complainant paid full and final payment in respect of the subject product  which was totally different   from the product actually ordered  and the OPs failed to refund even after  accepting their liability, the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim of complainant, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 1.12.2023.

2. In order to prove her case, complainant has tendered/proved her evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant had ordered  the subject product through instagram page of OP No.1 and the subject product was shipped by OP No.2 to the complainant after receiving Rs.1999/- from the complainant through online transaction  towards the price of the subject product as is also evident from Exhibit C-2 and further  on finding the subject product received by the complainant different from the product which was actually ordered, the complainant requested the OPs for return  and refund of the subject product  and the OPs asked the complainant to return the product at her own cost through courier as is also evident from Exhibit C-1(colly) i.e. the chat between the OP No.1 and complainant, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if  the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for.
   2. Perusal of  Exhibit C-1 the chat between the  OP No.1 and complainant clearly indicates that the OPs had admitted their liability qua the subject product and assured the complainant  that the return will be accepted  and refund will be made but only subject to the condition that the subject product will be  returned by the complainant at her own cost. As it stands proved on record that  once the OPs had assured the complainant that in case there is any defect in the subject product the complainant can return  the subject product and get refund of the  amount paid, it is safe to hold that it was bounden duty of the OPs to accept the return of the subject product at  their own cost and refund the amount paid by the complainant and by asking the complainant to return the subject product  through courier  at her own cost  itself amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed amounts to deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice and thus the complainant is certainly entitled for relief as prayed for.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹1999/- to the complainant(s) alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from  4.7.2023 when the complainant made request for return of the product till onwards..
2. to refund an amount of ₹1500/- to the complainant(s) as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay ₹1500/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

       After compliance of the aforesaid order by the OPs, the complainant shall return the product to the OPs and  the OPs shall collect the same at their own risk and cost..

5. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 6/02/2024 mp			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member