Delhi

North East

CC/303/2015

Purushottam Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Naaptool Service Ware House - Opp.Party(s)

30 Oct 2017

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. 303/15

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Purushottam Das H.No. 1820, Janta Flats, GTB Enclave, Nand Nagri, Delhi-110093		Complainant
		Versus
		M/s. Naap Tol Service Ware House Naap Tol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd. C/o 13 PL, Solution Old No. B-98, New No. B-1331 New Ashok Nagar, Near Pandey Medicos, Delhi-110096		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:		22.08.2015
			JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON :		25.10.2017
			DATE OF DECISION      :		30.10.2017

 

 

N.K.Sharma, President:-

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member:-

Order by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya

ORDER

1. Present complaint has been filed under section 12 of The Consumer Protection act by Shri Purushottam Das, against M/s Naap Tol Service Ware House /  Naap Tol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd – OP. The facts of the present complaint are that                on 28-5-2015, the complainant placed an order vide No. 14842275 to OP for buying a Roti-Maker amounting to Rs 1999/-. The same alongwith free gifts was delivered to complainant on 30.05.2015 vide invoice no. 846832 /DL/20152016 amounting to Rs. 2898/. The complainant didn’t mind to pay Rs. 2898/- instead of 1999/- thinking that it will resolve their problem of making chapati’s. Next day, while using the product the complainant could not make ‘rotis’ as claimed by OP in their advertisement thus rendering it useless. OP was contacted who requested the complainant to return the product for checking. As there was no OP address on the bill so the same could not be returned to OP by courier. After three days a courier boy came to the complainant for reverse pickup of said Roti Maker. On enquiry regarding the refund procedure and identity proof of the courier boy by the complainant, the said courier boy refused to show his ID and left without taking the product. Since then, nobody on behalf of OP has contacted the complainant. Hence, the present complaint seeking directions to OP to refund the cost of the product.

Complainant has annexed a copy of invoice no. 846832/DL/0011523/2015-2016 dated 29.05.2015, warranty card and a copy of his Aadhar Card with the complaint.

2. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP on 23.09.2015. Thereafter, OP filed their Written Statement where they took the plea that the complainant had purchased the Roti Maker from OP in good condition. It was stated that OP was engaged in promotion of the products and brands of the vendors whereby it provided the buyers, the products at reasonable rates. In lieu of the services, the vendors/manufacturer paid fixed commission to the OP. The process pertaining to right from placing of an order by the customer till delivery was explained wherein it was stated that the product was packed by vendor and delivered through courier service or Indian postal service. Thus, the OP was not a manufacturer but was marketing the product for fixed commission. It was also stated that there was no manufacturing defect and despite that the complainant was guided by the customer care staff to initiate return of the product. In the instant case the complainant was offered refund of the cost of the roti maker which could not be executed as the complainant had refused to hand-over the product to courier boy. According to OP’s agreement with merchant/ vendor of the products, the merchant/ vendor was responsible for quality and after sale service. Hence, no deficiency in service could not be attributed to them. Rest of the contents of the complaint were denied. 
3. In rejoinder, the complainant has reiterated the contents of his complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant wherein he reiterated the contents of the complaint. OP examined Sh. Arun Kumar Singha, Legal Administrative Officer who has reaffirmed the assertions made in the reply.
5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel of the complainant and have gone through the material placed on record. Complainant has placed on record the invoice dated 29.5.2015 as well as the instruction manual which bears one year warranty however, no address of manufacturer has been mentioned on it. Further, the plea taken by the OP that it was the complainant who had refused to handover the product to courier boy due to which the refund could not be initiated does not carry any weight as the courier boy had refused to issue any receipt/acknowledgement with respect to handing over of the roti maker. It can be understood from the point of the complainant that he would have left with no proof of collection of roti maker by OP and his fear is not without basis, as the complainant is not aware of the manufacturer who had endorsed the product of the manufacturer in lieu of fixed commission has also indulged in deficiency in service by not providing acknowledgement receipt for reverse pickup.

Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OP to refund the cost of the roti maker alongwith 9% interest from the date of delivery till realization, we also award Rs. 2,500/- as compensation for mental harassment inclusive litigation expenses.   

6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced on 30.10.2017)          

 

(N.K. Sharma) President

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)                      Member