Kerala

Idukki

CC/190/2018

JMMY Kurian - Complainant(s)

Versus

Napthol Onlin - Opp.Party(s)

Adv.Shiji Joseph

29 Nov 2019

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 23.10.2018

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL. P MEMBER

CC NO.190/2018

Between

Complainant : Jimmy Kurian,

Vadakkel House,

Rajakkadu P.O.,

Idukki.

(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)

And

Opposite Party : Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd.,

Unit No.401-406, Sigma IT Park,

4^th Floor, Plot No.203 & 204,

TTC Industrial Estate, Rabale,

Navi Mumbai – 400 701.

(By Adv: Jijo Joseph)

 

O R D E R

 

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

 

Case of the complainant is that :

 

The complainant ordered a Chappathi maker for Rs.1,199/- from the opposite party on July, 2017. The opposite party agreed to supply at Rajakkadu as per terms of offer and opposite party also agreed that the chappathi maker is of very good quality. Believing their words, the complainant placed the order and paid Rs.1,199/- in advance on 5.7.2017.

 

On 6.7.2017, the opposite party sent the product by post and complainant received the product. On receipt of the product, the complainant noticed that, the quality of hot plates is not good and some sort of stain is in the plate. Hence the complainant registered a complaint to opposite party. After registering the complaint, the complainant contacted several times to the opposite party for getting the chappathi maker changed. However, till this date, the opposite party did not changed the same. The selling of defective chappathi maker and the refusal to change the defective product amounts to deficiency in service. So complainant filed this complaint seeking relief such as to direct the

(cont....2)

- 2 -

opposite party to refund the price of the product Rs.1,199/- along with cost and compensation.

 

Notice from the Forum is served to opposite party. Opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version denying the averment in the complaint. It is submitted by the opposite party that, the product which was delivered to the complainant was of good quality merchandise product and delivered in a proper condition. The opposite party also submitted that as per the office records, the customer care executive had received complaint from the complainant on 23^rd August, 2017 and it is seen that the complainant lodged complaint after using the said product for 1 ½ months. The customer care staff registered complaint and remedies have to be provided only after verifying the issues present in the product. After analysing the issue and defects and completing the verification process of product accordingly the seller takes necessary steps. The opposite party submits that, it is seen from the records that, to offer the appropriate remedy, the executive had tried to call the complainant many times, but he was unreachable. Thereafter when the complainant contacted the opposite party after some months, the customer care staff offered him replacement of the product with new product and told him to send back the alleged product. The complainant did not send back the product and thereafter issue could not resolve. Further it is submitted that, they are still ready for replacement or refund the product cost through the concerned vendor, and there is no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint before the Forum and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents. Complainant produced a bill issued from opposite party which is marked as Ext.P1. Opposite party produced notarised power of attorney in the name of Mr. Arun Sinha which is marked as Ext.R1. Opposite party did not adduced evidence against the complaint.

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

Heard both sides.

 

The POINT :- We have heard the counsels of both parties and have gone through the evidence on records. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased chappathi maker (Roti & Khakara Maker) for Rs.1,199/- from

(cont....3)

- 3 -

opposite party on 6.7.2017 as per Ext.P1 bill. Proof affidavit filed by the complainant and it is submitted that the quality of the product is not good and have some stain seen on the plate. Hence the complainant registered a complaint to opposite party. It is admitted by the opposite party in their version. It is further submitted by opposite party that after analysing the issues and defects and completing the verification process of product, to offer the appropriate remedy to the complainant. It is considered view of the Forum that the quality of the product is not good and it is curable from opposite party. The opposite party also admitted that the customer care staff offered replacement of the product with new one and told the complainant to send back the alleged product. The opposite party did not adduced any evidence against the complaint.

 

Hence the Forum allowed the complaint. The Forum directs the opposite party to refund the product price Rs.1,199/- and also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of the petition, to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default, till its realisation. The complainant is directed to send back the alleged product to the opposite party.

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of November, 2019

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Jimmy Kurian.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - bill issued from opposite party.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - notarised power of attorney.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT