BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 15^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

ORDER

SMT. SUMA ANILKUMAR, MEMBER

The complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, complainant seeking direction towards OP for the following reliefs:-

1. To direct the OP to refund Rs.17,100/- along with 24% interest per annum from the date of pavement, till the realization.
2. To direct the OP to compensate Rs.20,000/- for the unproductive use and wastage of complainant’s time.
3. To direct the OP to compensate Rs.20,000/- for the harassment, discomfort, mental anguish suffered by the petitioners.
4. Impose punitive/exemplary damages of Rs.10,000/- upon the OP and compensate the complainant.
5. Grant costs of Rs.25,000/- for the legal expenses for the complainant and such other reliefs as are prayed for and deemed fit to be granted in the circumstances of the case.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is senior citizen, aged 63 years and he had been to Punchgani for vacation. The vacation home is situated in remote area from Panchgani. The OPs offered services like door delivery, grocery, vegetable, taxi and other need, etc. The OPs had offered their service to the complainant. OPs offered that the complainant transfer money through Google-pay or through any other electronic means and he will en-cash it from ATM and will hand over the complainant. Thus saving the time and effort of the complainant and also safety as the complainant being senior citizen. However, the complainant transferred the money to his account, initially the OPs returned the money deducting his service charges but when the complainant transferred Rs.17,000/- to OPs for en-cash on 06.05.2023, the OPs agreed to return money to the complainant next day after 11 a.m. However, the OPs did not return the money and challenge the complainant to initiate legal action. Hence, the complainant issued notice on 10.05.2023. The complainant had raised an criminal complainant to the to the senior Police Inspector at Panchgani, Satara. However, it was informed that this is a civil dispute. Having known the effective and efficacious remedy, the complainant hence filed this complaint.

3. On issue of notice, OP’s No.1&2 have not appeared, in spite of service held sufficient on them, hence placed Ex-parte. On perusal of the complaint, both OP No.1&2 are one and the same, hence hereafter we referred it as OP.

4. The complainant in his contention has filed affidavit evidence along with 8 documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 and submitted written arguments.

5. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

6.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- In the affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

REASONS

7. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

8. Looking into the evidence submitted by the complainant i.e., Ex.P.1, P.2 and P.3, it clearly shows that the OP  has received the amount of Rs.17,000/- and through the conversations of OP and the complainant, the OP has promised to return the amount by next day 11 a.m. The complainant being tourist and senior citizen trusted the OP who is a service provider in a not familiar area for the complainant. It is natural to trust a service provider in an unknown place as the OP had advertised himself to be a service provider for the visitors visiting Panchgani for vacation. The liability of the trust and faith lies on the OP. The complainant had been on vacation and had believed the Punchgani Home Services as they were giving all kinds of services to the visitors who came to Panchgani from outside places. Trusting the advertisement and the service provided by the OP for consideration and also the previous service given by the OP to the complainant, made the complainant to believe the home service and their employees. The OP has shown Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in service by not returning the amount to the complainant. Hence complainant is directed to refund the amount of Rs.17,100/- within 45 days. Hence Point No.1&2 accordingly.

9. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. OP No.1&2 are jointly and severally liable to refund the amount of Rs.17,100/- within 45 days with compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-, failing which OPs is directed to pay interest at the rate of 8% on Award amount from the date of payment till realization.
3. The OPs is directed to not to repeat the same in future. Further any complaint on OPs regarding the same, the OPs will be held liable under Section 39 I(g) of C.P Act 2019.
4. Furnish the copies to both the parties, without cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 15^th day of NOVEMBER, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

     NIL