DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 26^th  day of June, 2023

Present   : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

               : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member           Date of filing: 07/10/2022                           

     CC/186/2022

Ramya Murugesh,

Pazhanimala vaidyalayam,

Olavakkode,

Palakkad – 678 002.                                                   -           Complainant

(By Adv. Srikanth Thampan)                                                      

    V/s

1. M/s Bata India Ltd,

   418/02 – Bata House,

    Sector 17,

    Gurigram,

    Haryana – 122 001                                                    -          Opposite party

    (By Adv. G.Jayachandran)

O R D E R 

By Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief.        

      Pleadings in brief is the delay in getting the refund from the opposite party after returning the shoes purchased online by the complainant. The complainant purchased a pair of “Hush Puppies” shoes through the website of the opposite party on 25/5/2022 for Rs.3999/-. Since the size did not fit the size requirement of the complainant, she tried to initiate return request several times on 01/06/2022.  Since she could not succeed she contacted the customer care of the opposite party several times by way of e-mails, and telephone calls and finally on 14^th June, 2022 she received an e-mail with a heading “REFUND COMPLETED”. But the refund did not happen inspite of her best efforts and contacts with the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

2.  Notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed their version refusing all allegations but confirming the refund of the amount Rs.3999/- on 26/9/2022. They also raised the issue of maintainability on territorial jurisdiction.

3.  The following issues were framed for consideration.

1. Whether the compliant is maintainable on the issue of territorial jurisdiction ?
2. Whether there is undue delay on the part of the opposite party in making the refund to the complainant ?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
5. Reliefs as to cost and compensation ?

4.  The case was taken up in the  ‘Settlement’ held on 31/03/2023, & 29/04/2023 but no accord could be reached. The complainant did not file proof affidavit, inspite of several opportunities given by this Commission. Hence the evidence was closed and the case was taken for orders based on merits. Thereafter the complainant filed IAs for reopening the evidence and accepting proof affidavit. Since there was no representation of the complainant,  during the proceedings on 26/03/2023 the IA and PA were rejected.

5.   Issue - 1

      The contention of the opposite party is that as per the terms and conditions  of purchase/Cash memo and in terms of customer care policy of opposite party, only the Courts in Delhi/New Delhi is having exclusive jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. This issue was examined in detail by this Commission and ordered that this Commission is having territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complainant as per the  provisions of Section 34 of Consumer Protection Act,2019.(order dated 15/02/2023).

6.  Issue – 2,3 & 4.

      Relying on pleadings above we can come to a conclusion in this case. The only question that needs consideration is whether there is any illegality in delaying  the payment for nearly 3 months.

        The return order was successful on 14/06/2022 and the refund has finally happened on 26/09/2022 which can’t be termed as delay in usual course. Such a delay making the refund is to be termed as undue delay which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

7.  Issue – 4& 5.

Since the deficiency in service can be presumed by pleadings itself, the complainant is entitled to reliefs to compensate the financial loss suffered and the mental agony. Therefore the complainant is allowed ordering      the following.

1.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.
2. The opposite party is also liable to pay Rs. 3,000/- as cost.
3. The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium  per month or part thereof till the date of payment.

      Pronounced in open court on this the 26^th day of June, 2023.

     Sd/-                                   Vinay Menon V

                                                President

     Sd/-

                                                                               Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                       Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked on the side of the complainant    : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the complainant      : Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party   : Nil

Cost:  Nil

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.