C.R is put up as directed.
Having gone through the grouse in the case and the materials made available on record, we dispense with drawing any elaborated judgment in the case and by the following Order, intend to dispose of the complaint which has been proceeding exparte against the opp. party arrayed in the case.
- The Salient facts enumerated under the complaint are that the complainant is an Asstt. Professor in the Deptt. of Energy at the Central University at Tezpur, Assam. On 18.08.2023, he placed an Order for a Television viz., One Plus TV YIS Pro-43UD2A00 Black IN, USN# IMEI No.E6230074D6VX00267, for a Net payable amount of Rs.27,999.00 from the official website of the opp. party viz., One Plus Technology India Pvt.Ltd., and a Pan India Business and Services house. A packed Carton box was delivered to him on 23.08.23 from One Plus. As per instruction in the official website, Complainant refrained from immediately unboxing the package following the company condition that the package must be unpacked by opp. party’s authorized technician to be eligible for replacement in the event of the TV inside the package being found damaged. It is alleged that usually the company arrange installation for online purchase but, however the complainant raised an installation request in the official website of the Company on 24.08.2023 and was reciprocated by the company that the TV should get installed within 24-28 hours as per Company Policy of opp. party. It is alleged that onward since then, there was neither any call or visit of any Company technician despite around 50(fifty) calls to the toll free number of Customer Care and Services of the Company followed by several e-mails exchanged in this respect by complainant and even with the hierarchy of the Company which, each time fell only on false promises of installing the TV within the next day or within 48 hours. It is alleged that the complainant is under tremendous restlessness at such callous and non-chalant attitude of the opp. party in its service and that the complainant is apprehensive with the fear of losing his hard-earned money as the opp. party has been constantly resorting to procrastination and tantalization, turning a deaf ear to his lineal request of either installing the TV or refunding the amount besides, further being plagued with the constant negative doubts of being bamboozled with the package not containing the TV that he ordered or the same might be a damaged product. It has been alleged that such act of the opp. party has taken toll on the mental status of the complainant as it adversely affected his mental peace being in the teaching and learning process in his work place as a Professor in an University. In addition thereof, being a father of two, the ordeal has also taken toll on his peace-at-home as his siblings would irritate him over the issue for being unable to enjoy the newly purchased TV. That apart, it has further been contended that he has been left in the lurch and quandary as opp. party have nowhere mentioned in their instruction what if no technician visit to unpack the package or that for how long the consumer needs to wait for a technician to visit and unpack the box for which the complainant is in total doldrum and chaos. Complainant, alleging deficient service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opp. party has claimed a total compensation of Rs.5,27,999/- which includes the price of the TV.
2. Despite notice being duly served on the opp. party, none appeared to contest the case and the case was accordingly, drawn up for proceeding ex parte against the opp. party.
3. Complainant in due course tendered his evidence-on-affidavit exhibiting as many as 05 (five) documents, while simultaneously issuing a certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act, in respect of the documents procured electronically. Having expressed disinclination to file any written argument on ground of the elements-for-argument, being already raised under his complaint petition and evidence on affidavit, the proceeding in the case was thus, slated for judgment.
4. We have carefully considered the case of the complainant and the materials brought on record. We find sufficient ground that constitute deficiency in service together with unfair trade practice on the part of the opp. party, as has been complained of by the complainant.
5. Sans repetition of the perverse behaviour of the opp. party in terms of business ethics as already elucidated in the complaint and first reproduced above, we find that the complainant having been able to prove a case prima facie, the same thus calls for interference in the given state of things, as the justice system cannot be expected to be a mute spectator to the whims, and rampant tyranny of unscrupulous traders who turns out to be literally a typical recidivist, daring to act in crass and impunity of outraging, disparaging, tinkering-n-toying with the self-esteem and emotion of its modest & honest consumers.
6. Leave alone what these type of unscrupulous traders would do with an illiterate, simpleton, gullible consumer, the very act of daring the so called erudite sections of the society as in the present complainant, who is an Asstt. Professor in a Central University, is a vignette of the palpably growing immoral business ethics in practice of certain traders which needs to be tramelled. No words of condemnation affects these thick skinned traders, business house or barons. We therefore, have no hesitation to also hold that the case simultaneously comes under the definition of unfair trade and restrictive trade practice which, in our considered opinion, attracts Sections:2(1),(6),(7)(9)(ii),(iv) (v),(11),(13),(16),(19),(23),(28),(33),(37),(38),(41),(42),(4), (46) (i) & (47and its sub-clauses there under) of the amended Act,2019 in a comprehensive manner of the Consumer Protection Act. Further, in our considered view, the act of the opp. party invokes applicability of the legal maxim of ut poena ad paucos, metus ad omnes perveniat or that punishment may happen to a few but the fear of it affects all.
7. In view of our anxious observations as above, we are not inclined to interfere much with the claim of the complainant more so, when, for no rhyme and reason the complainant and his family has been subjected to disturbance of peace of mind for the irresponsible and act of whims of the opp. party. Having held thus, we are however, of the considered view that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed as compensation in the case, sounds to be on higher side and fanciful. We therefore, allow a lumpsum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh) only, in addition to the price of the Television which in our considered opinion, would meet the ends of justice to the aggrieved complainant.
8. The complaint is accordingly allowed exparte against the opp. party. Opp. party is ordered to compensate the complainant with a sum of Rs.1,27,999/- with 18% interest on Rs.27,999/- with effect from the date of payment of the cost of the TV made by complainant till to the date of realisation in full. Opp. party shall however, be at liberty to take back the T.V from the complainant simultaneously upon compliance of the award in full.
9. Opp. party is ordered ex parte to comply with the above award within a period of 30(Thirty) days of the date of receipt of this Order to avoid levying of penal interest on the total awarded sum.
The case stands disposed of accordingly as above.
