FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT
Presented by:
Debasis Bhattacharya, Presiding Member
Having been aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quality and quantity of the goods received against a purchase order placed with an online shopping portal under the name Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd., the instant complaint petition has been filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Brief facts of the case: The complainant having been impressed by watching advertisement of OP 1 on Television placed an order on 10.07.2020 for purchasing of the product namely “Kitchen queen 43 pieces coloured stainless steel storage set, color white” (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said product’) by booking through telephonic call, At the time of placing order it was very clear from the said T.V. advertisement that the said product would contain the quantity of 43 pcs in number. However on 14.07.2020 the said product was delivered to the complainant upon payment of Rs.2,398/- only as per Tax Invoice no. 8472165002175021 dated 10.07.2020. On receipt of the packet containing the consignment, the complainant opened the same and with utter surprise, discovered that the packet contained only 23 pcs of product instead of 43 pcs. Allegedly, quality of the goods also was not in conformity with the quality claimed in the advertisement in tele-media.
The complainant conveyed the entire matter and expressed his grievances by calling the customer care helpline no. of the concerned organization and requested for replacing the defective consignment by a complete set of product as shown in the advertisement. However the response from the other end was thoroughly negative, expressing their inability to replace the consignment. Reportedly a customer executive clarified over phone that so far as the quantity was concerned lids of the containers were to be considered separately while counting the specific quantity of the goods. The complainant having been utterly disappointed at this, was compelled to issue a Demand Notice on 25.08.2020 through email to the OP stating his grievances related to the quality and quantity of the delivered product. The communication being unresponsive, another Notice of Demand was sent on 10.09.2020 by further stating the facts through registered post on 12.09.2020. The postal track report substantiates proper delivery of the said demand notes. This time, on receipt of the said demand notices OP 1, through its Ld. Advocate issued a reply letter vide ref. no. nil dated.21.09.2020. The complainant in turn on 17.10.2020 through his authorized Advocate sent a reply by rejecting all the clarifications made with regard to the goods in question in the communication dtd. 21.09.2020.
Considering the attitude of the opposite parties as unfair trade practice through misleading advertisement the complainant approaches to this Commission with a prayer for imposing direction upon the opposite parties to refund back the consideration price of Rs. 2,398/- , to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, loss and injury, mental torture and trauma caused to the complainant by supplying a defective product and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- for legal cost, notices and cost of complaint.
Evidence on affidavit and Brief Notes of argument filed by the complainant are almost replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.
The issues which deserve mention before going into the merit of the case are as follows.
- OP 1 is actually an online E-Commerce platform promoting the products through advertisements and OP 2 and 3 are manufacturer and supplier of the items.
- None of the OPs appeared before this forum even on a single occasion in spite of service of notice. They did not feel it necessary to file either a written version or evidence on affidavit.
From the discussion hereinabove, it transpires that the complainant is a consumer in terms of the provisions laid down under section 2(7)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The complainant is a resident within the geographical location of the District of Hooghly and the financial involvement of the instant consumer case does not exceed Rs.20,00,000/-. Thus this Commission has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in this case.
Now the issues whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief, being mutually interrelated are taken together for necessary consideration in this order.
DECISION WITH REASONS
The petitioner to corroborate his points has submitted copies of documents viz. the relevant tax invoice, postal receipts and postal track report in connection with service of several notices, communications sent through e-mail, legal notice sent to the OP 1 etc.
Materials on records are perused.
On thorough examination of all the aspects of the issue it is evident that the OP 1 cared a fig for the minimum business ethics and for making more and more easy profit exploited the E-Commerce platform by making false claims and misleading representations through Television advertisements.
The clarification offered by the OP 1 that while counting the pieces, the lids also should be taken into consideration sounds ridiculous and reflects mala fide intention. To earn more profit this e-commerce organization may claim in future that even a detachable handle of a particular item should also be considered separately while counting the numbers of items packed in the consignment.
The Commission, in view of the above, is of the decision that there was grossly unfair business practice on the OP 1’s part by suppressing the actual offer while advertising through television. It is established that directly or indirectly goods’ prices were manipulated and unfair or deceptive methods of sale was adopted.
An advertisement is a promotion through television, radio, or any other electronic media. A misleading advertisement is one that says untrue things about the goods and services, which can mislead the consumer in buying them or deliberately conceals important information about the quality and quantity of the product.
In the instant case exactly this unfair means were adopted.
In the result it is accordingly
ORDERED
that the complaint case being no. 121 of 2021 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part. The opposite party 1 will be liable to refund back the consideration price of Rs.2398/- to the complainant. Apart from the same, the OP 1 will have to pay also Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and agony by disposing goods by way of online sale through misleading advertisements. Besides, OP 1 will further pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant towards litigation costs.
OP 1 is directed to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of this order.
In the event of non-payment/ non-compliance of the above noted direction, the opposite party 1 will be liable to deposit Rs. 10,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of DCDRC Hooghly which is to be utilized for the purpose of poor litigant public.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/authorized advocates on record by hand against proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
