Delhi

North East

CC/209/2015

Ratan Kr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Naaptol Rvp - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 209/15

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ratan Kumar S/o Shri Dhan Singh R/o C-21, Gaun Gokulpur, Gol Chakkar Park, Loni Road, East Delhi, Near Kuan Chowk, Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
	Naptool RVP 13 PL Solution, Old No. B98, New No. B 1331, New Ashok Nagar, Near Pandey Medical, Delhi-110096.	Opposite Party

 

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

17.06.2015 13.02.2018 28.02.2018

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

 

 

 

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member:-

 

ORDER

1. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant had booked artificial jewellery through OP which is an online shopping company on 21.04.2015 telephonically on telephone            No. 09220005000 vide order No. 14212264 and was assured by the OP that in case he does not like the consignment, the same is on returnable basis and the price of which would be refunded back to the complainant. The complainant received the consignment through courier within the next 2,3 days of placing of the order, the cost of which was 1499/-+300/- VPP, totaling Rs. 1799/-. The complainant has stated that on opening the parcel, he found that the jewellery was defective which information, the complainant immediately gave to the OP and asked for reverse pickup. On 29.04.2015, a courier person by the name of Nitesh having his mobile No. 7838782821 picked up the jewellery from the complainant and told him that his refund will come by way of cheque. However, no cheque was sent by the OP despite several communication. Lastly however the OP sent a cheque No. 683449 dated 06.05.2015 for a sum of Rs. 745/-drawn on ICICI Bank Navi Mumbai to the complainant and refused to send the balance amount. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint alleging mental tension for which he seeking damages to the tune of Rs. 1055/- as remaining outstanding against Rs. 1799/- alongwith Rs. 10,000/- against the OP.
2. Notice was issued to the OP and written statement was filed by the OP on 30.10.2015 in which the OP had taken preliminary defence that the OP functions as per law and regulations and is fully committed towards its business transactions and keeps its manufacturers and sellers fully informed about the quality, images/pictures, pricing, saving/schemes and brands and for all of the above there are proper telephone numbers given for communication. The OP further stated that in its advertisement it is made clear that for all services vendors / merchant would be answerable as also for logo, copy right, trade mark, costing and warranty etc and that all the agreements entered into by the OP with the merchant / seller, the merchant/ seller would be responsible/answerable for the quality, repair, replacement or refund. The OP took the defence that the complainant had purchased artificial jewellery through OP which was further sent to the concerned seller which had then packed the said jewellery  properly and sent the same to the complainant. The OP took the defence that it does not deal with any kind of manufacturing or selling but is a marketeer of various items through diverse mediums such as internet, newspaper advertisement or televised advertisement in which it is clearly mentioned that for manufacturing and warranty, third party seller is responsible. The OP further stated that there was a delay on the part of complainant from receipt of the artificial jewellery  consignment till lodging of the complaint with respect thereto with the customer care of the OP by the complainant during which interregnum, there is a possibility of the said jewellery in question having being used regardless of which however the OP had given the complainant an option of replacement or refund through seller for which the complainant had opted for refund. The process of refund is that firstly the product is sent to the concerned seller who checks the returned item and acts upon the complaint and thereafter the refund is processed. In this regard the customer care of OP had asked the complainant to return the entire consignment of artificial jewellery comprising 10 designer necklace sets, 1 Mangalsutra, 1 pearl Mala set and 1 pair of Dangler Earrings. However, at the time of reverse pickup, the complete consignment was not returned and a sizeable portion of jewellery  was missing due to which reason the refund of Rs. 745/- was paid proportionate to the jewellery  returned by the complainant and received by the OP.
3. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the complainant in which the complainant stated that even after one month of returned of the consignment of artificial jewellery , the OP kept delaying the refund thereof and that the OP misrepresent and falsely beautifies the items on screen whereas in reality they were broken and defective.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit were filed by both the parties.
5. Written arguments were also filed by both the parties. The OP placed on record the CRM complaint details with respect to the jewellery consignment order placed by the complainant on 21.04.2015 of Maahika Jewellery collection for Rs. 1798/- through OP which was delivered to the complainant on 25.04.2015. The said CRM clearly mentioned that on 02.05.2015 at 2:43 PM, the parcel was received by reverse pickup with comment “missing seven set necklace (damage five set jewellery)”.
6. We have carefully perused the case file and heard the arguments of both the parties. It is not in dispute that imitation jewellery  consignment worth Rs. 1799/- was placed by way of order by the complainant through OP. However, the refund of Rs. 745/- was made proportionate to the defective jewellery returned by the complainant to the OP and full refund was not made due to the incomplete return of consignment by the complainant to the OP to disprove/ deny which allegation, the complainant failed to placed on record any conclusive / cogent piece of evidence. The CRM report / complaint details placed on record by the OP could not be rebutted by the complainant in which it is clearly mentioned that the complete consignment of all the jewellery articles was not returned/ handed over by the complainant to the reverse pickup person of the OP. We therefore find no deficiency in service on the part of the OP in as much as it had refunded an amount in proportion to the jewellery returned to the complainant. We accordingly find the complaint devoid of merit and dismiss the same with no order as to cost.   
7. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
8.   File be consigned to record room.
9.   Announced on  28.02.2018   

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member