BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 637 of 2019
Date of Institution : 04.11.2019
Date of Decision : 06.02.2020.
Amit aged 35 years son of Shri Lalit Kumar, resident of Balaji Footwear, Laxman Dass Arora Street, Bhadra Bazar, Sirsa, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Myntra. Com, 3rd Floor, AKR Tech Park, 7th Mile Stone, Krishna Reddy Industrial Area, Kudlu Gate, Bangalore, Karnataka- 566 058, through its Manager/ authorized signatory.
2. Bizotico, No.1, 3rd Floor, Maruthi Complex, Opp. RT Post Office, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore, Karanatka- 560032, through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………… MEMBER
Present: Sh. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties already exparte.
ORDER
In brief, the case of the complainant is that opposite party no.1 is an online shopping website and offers delivery of different type of electrical goods, clothes, wrist watches etc. That on 5.9.2019, the op no.1 on its mobile-app had displayed advertisement of a wrist watch SCUDERIA FERRARI Men Analogue Watch for Rs.21,950/-. The complainant being influenced with the specification and price of the wrist watch, placed an order for purchase of same and paid a sum of Rs.21,950/- to op no.1 through online transaction. The said order was registered by op no.1 vide order No.1119582-0473189-7988003 dated 5.9.2019. It is further averred that after 5/6 days of placing the order, complainant received a packet from the delivery man. Thereafter, complainant opened the said packet and also made video recording of the same at the time of opening of the packet, but when he opened the packet, he found that wrist watch was not same which was ordered by him and for which he had paid a sum of Rs.21,950/- to op no.1. The said wrist watch was marketed by op no.2. It is further averred that since the watch delivered to complainant by ops was not the same and was not of same specification as ordered by him, therefore, complainant as per return policy of ops made a request for the return of the said wrist watch, which was registered as Return Request No.4058955008. The complainant was informed that delivery boy of the company will pickup said product from the premises of complainant and accordingly, same was picked-up by the delivery boy of ops from his premises. He was assured by op no.1 that price of the wrist watch will be refunded to him within a week. It is further averred that however complainant did not get refund of the amount of Rs.21,950/- from ops and thus he contacted them through their customer care and also through email but with no fruitful result. Now vide email dated 22.9.2019, the op no.1 has refused to refund the amount and thereby has deactivated the account of complainant from its website. That in this manner, the ops have been indulged in unfair trade practice and have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant and thereby have put the complainant to suffer unnecessary harassment and mental tension. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties through registered cover but neither notices received back nor ops appeared and as a period of more than 30 days elapsed, therefore, ops were proceeded against exparte.
3. The complainant then led his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through record carefully.
5. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 in which he has deposed and reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of delivery order dated 19.2019 Ex.C2, copy of billing details Ex.C3, copy of return request Ex.C4, copies of emails Ex.C5 to Ex.C12, copy of tax invoice Ex.C13, copy of specification of wrist watch Ex.C14 and Ex.C15 and CD Ex.C16. The pleadings and evidence led by complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted as ops have failed to appear before this Forum to contest the present complaint rather opted to be proceeded against exparte.
6. It is proved on record that on 5.9.2019 complainant placed an order for purchase of wrist watch in question marketed by op no.2 through online shopping website of the opposite party no.1 and made payment of Rs.21,950/- through online and when on 12.9.2019 the watch was delivered to the complainant, he found that wrist watch was not the same for which he placed the order and paid a sum of Rs.21,950/- to the ops and therefore as per return policy of the ops he immediately made a request for the return of the said wrist watch. It is also proved on record that on 17.9.2019 said wrist watch was picked up by the delivery boy of the opposite parties as is evident from Ex.C4 but the ops have failed to make refund of amount of Rs.21,950/- to the complainant despite his several requests sent through emails. So, it is proved that opposite parties have caused deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice towards the complainant and complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.21,950/- from ops alongwith interest from the date of return of watch in question i.e. 19.9.2019.
7. In view of above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to make refund of the amount of Rs.21,950/- to the complainant alongwith interest @7% per annum from 19.9.2019 (date of return of watch) till actual realization. We also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The ops are liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the ops. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member President,
Dated:06.02.2020. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
