Date of Filing:17.08.2009<br /> Date of Order:24.10.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 24 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1981 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Aditya Kishwar,<br /> 120, Munirka Enclave,<br /> Nelson Mandela Marg,<br /> New Delhi 110067. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> M/s Indiaplaza,<br /> Fabmall House,<br /> No. 673, 10th Main, <br /> 7th Cross, HAL II Stage,<br /> Indirangar,<br /> Bangalore-560008. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> The facts of the case are that, on 12/09/2008 he ordered from the website a product that was described as “Adamis Printed Dry Milled Tan Strolly Bags”. Product was priced at Rs. 10,750/-. Website was offering discount of Rs.2,510/-. After discount the price came to Rs.8,240/-. Rs.50/- was paid towards delivery charges. Total sum of Rs.8,290/- was paid by the complainant to the opposite party. Given the high price for the product, and the fact that it described the product as “bags’, the plaintiff believed that he was ordering two bags which was still quite expensive at Rs.4,120/- per bag. When the product was delivered to plaintiff, it was discovered that there was only one bag and not “bags” as had been mentioned in the website and even the invoice. Immediately, an email was sent to the customer service department of the defendant pointing out the difference in the product description and the product delivered. The customer service representatives of the defendant replied that all products on that particular page had been described as “bags”. It was pointed out to them that this was not the case as some products it was mentioned as “bag” only. On 04/10/2008 there was a phone call from the customer service representative to the plaintiff offering to take back the bag and refund the money. However, as the bag had already been used, the customer service representative was not willing to take it back. This offer should have been made in the first instance when the issue was raised with the defendant. However, no such offer was ever made when the bag was unused. There was correspondence through emails and the customer service representative admitted to the fact in an email dated 25/10/2008 that there was a ‘technical error’ on their part and that it has since been corrected. The fact that the defendant found it necessary to change the product description from ‘bags’ to bag is a clear admission of the fact that previous description was misleading. Being an internet based shop where it is not possible for customers to actually see the product or have a first hand experience of knowing about the products for sale, it is the duty of the defendant to ensure that there is no ambiguity in the product description, especially in basic matters like grammar that could be misleading to the public at large. By misrepresenting the product, the defendant was cheating the public at large. The plaintiff would never have purchased the product had he known it was one bag that was going to cost of Rs.8,240. The fact that the defendant has reduced the price of the product from Rs. 8,240/- to Rs.6,790/- shows that the product was over-priced at Rs. 8,240/- and that the plaintiff was justified in believing that he was paying for two bags and not one at the then price of Rs. 8,240/-. Therefore, the complainant has prayed that opposite party be directed to supply one more bag of the kind supplied to the complainant or to refund 50% of the price charge and for grant of cost. <br /> 2. After admitting the complaint, notice was issued to opposite party through RPAD. Notice was served on the opposite party. When the case was set for appearance on 22/10/2009, nobody appeared before this forum on behalf of the opposite party. Even the opposite party has not sent defence version by post also. Therefore, the opposite party was placed exparte.<br /> 3. I have gone through the complaint allegations and the documents. The case put up by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The complainant has produced website print out of opposite party. He has produced receipt to show that, he has paid total amount of Rs.8,290/- including shipping charges. Amount was received by the opposite party on 19/09/2008. The complainant has produced e-mail correspondence. The opposite party sent e-mail on 25/10/2008 to the complainant. The said e-mail reads as under:<br /> From:<br /> customerservice@indiaplaza.in<br /> Sent: 25 October 2008 05:23 AM<br /> To: akishwar@hotmail.com<br /> Dear Aditya Kishwar,<br /> I sincerely apologise for the inconvenience caused to you due to technical error. The item was mentioned as Dry Milled Tan Strolley Bags due to technical error. The same has been rectified. I kindly request you to retain the bag with you as you have used it. <br /> <br /> Please feel free to write back to us for further clarifications.<br /> <br /> Warm Regards, <br /> Thara,<br /> <br /> From this e-mail it is very clear that, the opposite party admitted the error on their part and they have issued misleading advertisement in the website to the customers. Therefore, it is a definite case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party played unfair trade practice by giving misleading advertisement. The customers thinking that they may receive bags by paying huge amount but, actually the opposite party has sent only one bag to the frustration of the complainant/customers. Therefore, there is a considerable merit in the submission made by the complainant. The case put up by the complainant in this case has gone unchallenged. It appears that the opposite party has no defence to make. Therefore, it has chosen to remain absent from the present proceeding. Taking into consideration of the facts stated in the complainant and the documents, it is just, fair and reasonable to accept the case of complainant and direct the opposite party to supply one more bag of the kind supplied to the complainant or else refund 50% of the price charged towards the supply of bag. The opposite party should have accepted the demand of the complainant immediately but instead of that it has taken unsustainable defence. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers/customers. The object of the Act is to be achieved by granting relief to the customers. In this case the complainant who has spent his time and energy in getting proper response from the opposite party but the opposite party has not properly responded to the request of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was forced to file complaint before this forum for getting justice. Therefore, the complainant is also entitled for cost of the present litigation from the opposite party. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> 4. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to supply one more bag called “Adamis Printed Dry Milled Tan Strolly Bags” to the complainant or else refund Rs. 4,120/- (50% of the amount charged). <br /> 5. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of the present litigation to the complainant. <br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as a statutory requirement. <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br />