DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 29^th day of  November 2024

[                                                                                             

                             Filed on: 20.12.2020

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                   Member

C C. No. 427/2020

COMPLAINANT

     Biju M.Babu, S/o.P.Babu, Mannalikudy House, 297/XVIII, Perumbavoor P.O., Pin-683 542, Perumbavoor.

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. PRV JMD INFOTECH PVT. LTD., 4^th Floor, 3409 Regurpura Galli No.1, Karad Bagh Central, Delhi Near OM Corner, Delhi-110 005
2. M/s.SAAR, C/56/22, 4^th Floor, Sector-62, Noida, Near Maple Bear Canadian Pre School, Gautham Budh Nagar, Uttar Predesh-201 301
3. ARK Telecom, #6-3-347/22/2 1^st Floor, Aiswarya Nilayam, Near Sai Baba Temple, Dwarakapuri Colony, Above SBI Bank,Punjaguttu, Hyderabad, Telungana.
4. Krishna Impex, 17A/54, Basement, WEA, Karad Bagh, Delhi, Indraprastha Hotel, Delhi Pin-110 005

F I N A L    O  R  D  E  R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had two ‘uddan’ accounts for his shop (Manna mobiles).  The complainant had ordered some mobile phones to his shop called Manna mobiles owned and licenced by his mother from the official website of ‘udaan’.  But the mobile phones received by the complainant as per the order was all dead sets.  The opposite party had offered 7 days return policy in the website.  The complainant had returned all the mobile phones worth Rs.152742/- to the official website.  The distribution of the phone had offered full support to return the products. The returns were rejected by the opposite parties team without any proper reason.   The complainant states that opposite party has denied the return facility of the complainant stating that the complainant has no sufficient order history.  The opposite had considered the complaint as a flagged buyer and hence rejected the returns.  The complainant states that the complainant is not a flagged buyer and had raised returns within the time frame.  The complainant states that there is deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant had also sent e-mails to the opposite party along with detailed order summary report.  There was no response from the opposite party.  The matter was not settled by the opposite party.  Hence the complainant approached the Commission to redress his grievances.

2. Notice

Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 29.01.2021.  Notices sent to the opposite parties 1 and 2  returned with an endorsement ‘Door locked’.  Notice sent to the 2^nd opposite party seen served on 03.02.2021.  The 4^th opposite party accepted notice on 02.02.2021. Upon notice, 2^nd and 4^th opposite party not appeared before the Commission.  Version not filed by the 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties.  Hence opposite parties 2 and 4 set as ex-parte.  The complainant was directed to furnish the fresh address of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties.  The case was posted to 12.02.2024 and then adjourned to 12.02.2024 for furnishing the fresh address of the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties. Since the complainant has not taken any interest to initiate steps against the 1stand 3^rd opposite parties, the case was again adjourned to 09.08.2024 and then adjourned to 19.11.2024.

The complainant was absenting continuously.  The complainant was present only on a single hearing ie., the first hearing of the case on 19.02.2024.  Thereafter, the complainant was absenting continuously.  Ample chances were given to the complainant to furnish the correct address if the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties.  Without the service of notice to all opposite parties  we cannot proceed the case further.  Despite multiple opportunities to comply, the complainant has not submitted the necessary details to issue notices to the 1^st and 3^rd opposite parties.  The Commission finds that the complainant has not interested to proceed the case further.  It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore without the completion of the service of notice, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. The complainant has not shown any interest to proceed the case and hence the complaint is dismissed.

       Pronounced in the open commission on the 29^th day of November  2024.

Sd/-

                                                                                    Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

                                                                                    V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                                                                Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

uk