BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

C.C.No: 493/2016     Filed on 15.10.2016

ORDER DATED: 07.05.2018

Complainant:

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

(by Adv. Lijo Roy)

This C.C having been heard on 22.03.2018, the Forum on 07.05.2018  delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR, MEMBER:

Case of the complainant is that he purchased a mobile handset for Rs.3,398/- on 12.08.2016, being attracted by the advertisements shown by the opposite parties through television.  But when he started using the phone, the features mentioned in the advertisement were not there.  He found that it was far below the other handsets of this range.  So he complained the same with the opposite parties, since there was problem with the touch screen.  But nothing happened.  He was not even given the cash receipt for this purchase.  So he claims for refund along with cost and compensation for the deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties. 

It is submitted by the opposite parties that the complainant has purchased “Jeo Tex 4 Sim TV mobile” (herein after referred to as said product) on 4^th August, 2016 through the opposite party which act as an online shopping portal and from the vendor/seller named “Datawind Innovations Hyderabad” for Rs.3,398/- paid to the concerned vendor/seller by way of cash on delivery .  as per the concept of online shopping portal, the respondent herein Ms. Naaptol after receiving the order from the complainant for the said product, forwarded it to the above referred seller for the purpose of sale and delivery who had dispatched a standard quality, working condition product, in a sealed condition parcel box.  It was delivered at the address of the complainant through Postal Department services, without any damage in transit.  The copy of chelan or receipt is always attached to the packet of the parcel.  It was a computer generated copy having no seal and signature and it seems that therefore the complainant felt that the bill is not furnished to him.  The said chelan was computer generated copy and therefore it does not require physical signature of the parties.  Therefore the allegations of the complainant that he had not received the chelan or receipt is based on his own assumptions and presumptions, not on the facts and hence not acceptable to the opposite parties.  As per the office records maintained by the opposite party company it is found that “till date no complaints with respect to the said product, as alleged by the complainant in the present complaint has been lodged or registered with the opposite party customer care team and therefore the opposite parties deny the allegations of the complainant in totality and requires him to provide strict proof of the same.  According to the company policy if any defect is found in the product within the warranty period then the product is been repaired, if repair work is not possible then the product is replaced and if in the event of both remedies are not satisfactory or possible then the price of the product is refunded to the customer.  The remedy is offered on the basis of the above sequence to every customer.  The complainant would have complained of any defect in the said product to the opposite party they would have definitely offered some remedy as per the above stated sequence or provided proper information/guidance to the complainant.  However, since “no complaints was registered, no remedy was provided” to the complainant by the opposite party.  The complainant had made exaggerated statements/mentioned about irrelevant incidents by “comparing the said product with some other phone features” and raising the vague allegations with respect to “various offers of M/s. Naaptol” in the present complaint which are not connected with the subject matter of the complaint under reply in order to injure or harm the name, fame, interest and reputation of the opposite party i.e. M/s. Naaptol.  The product which was delivered to the complainant was of same quality as shown in the respective advertisement or as described on the online shopping portal of the opposite party.  Therefore it is submitted that M/s.  Naaptol had dutifully discharged its duty towards the complainant and the opposite party strongly denies the allegations of any sort of deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant and requires strict proof.  Hence not liable to pay any compensation or damages to the complainant.

Issues

1. Whether the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties are proved?
2. If so, reliefs and costs if any?

Issues (i) and (ii)

          Complainant filed affidavit along with a document which was marked as Ext. P1.  No affidavit is seen filed by the opposite parties.  On going through the documents produced by the opposite parties, which are produced along with the version, it is clear that the complainant on many occasions, registered complaints with the opposite party regarding the defects in the handset and about the non issuance of receipt.  But everywhere it is stated as complaint closed.  How it is closed is not mentioned anywhere.  So the allegations of the complainant regarding the defects were found to be true.  The purpose for which the handset was purchased was not served, and so the complainant is eligible for a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and he is eligible to get refund of the purchase price i.e., Rs.3,398/-.   Considering the circumstances and taken into account, no expert opinion is taken no cost is ordered for this complaint.

In the result, complaint is allowed.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to refund the complainant Rs.3,398/- + along with Rs.2,000/- as compensation within two months of receipt of this order, failing which the entire amount (Rs.5,398/-) will carry interest at the rate of 9% till the date of realisation. No order on cost.  On payment, opposite party can collect the mobile handset from the complainant.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 7^th day of May, 2018.

SL

C.C.No.493/2016

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS

                                                                            Sd/-

PRESIDENT

SL