Punjab

Faridkot

CC/21/64

JITU DEKA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAHUL CHIBBER AND PARUL CHIBBER - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

29 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FARIDKOT

C.C. No. :                64 of 2021

Date of Institution:   06.04.2021

Date of Decision :    29.04.2021

 

Jitu Deka son of Late Sarat Chandra Deka, Village and Post Office Sakoajhora, P.S. Banarhat, District Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, PIN 735212.

                                             .......Complainant

Versus

Rahul Chhibber & Parul Chhibber, Chhibber Agri Equipments, Faridkot Road (Opp. Hotel Blue Hill), Kotkapura, 151204, Punjab.

                     .......Opposite Party

          Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(Now, Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)

 

Quorum:     Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Jitu Deka/Complainant in person,    

                  OP Exparte.

 

(ORDER) 

( Param Pal Kaur, Member)

 

 

 

c.c. no. 64 of 2021

 

                                        Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP for deficiency in service and for seeking directions to OP to refund the amount of Rs.1,53,000/-received from complainant and for further directing OP to pay compensation for harassment, mental tension and agony suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses.

2                                       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 04.11.2020, he purchased agriculture equipments from Chhiber Agri Eqpts/OP for Rs.1,55,000/-. OP gave discount of Rs.2000/- and complainant paid Rs.1,53,000/-to OP i.e Rs.1,43,000/-through UPI and as per instructions of OP, complainant paid Rs.10,000/-on receipt of product i.e at the time of delivery. Complainant submitted before the Commission that complainant came in contact with OP through whatsapp business account and he purchased the product only on assurance given by OP that their equipments would be of superior quality. It is pertinent to mention here that complainant saw the products through the videos on youtube and then, he contacted their owner Rahul Chibber and Parul Chibber on their mobile numbers but immediately

c.c. no. 64 of 2021

their Sales Manager namely Sahil contacted complainant and he shared their website, similar images and videos from their website and youtube channels. Complainant shared his needs with specifications of equipments and OP assured that it would deliver the topmost and reliable equipments under asked price range. In the meantime, he kept following their website to check the equipments and specifications as per his need and asked quotations to purchase the items but Sales Manager shared the price through chatting and after finalizing the amount, he purchased the equipments through UPI method, but OP discouraged the quotation method in their sales/purchase system. Complainant has alleged that OP has charged exaggerated price for equipments purchased by him. OP charged Rs.22,000/-for trolley though its original price was Rs.18,000/-; reaper for Rs.40,000/-but its original price was 36,000/-; OP charged Rs.12,500/-for chain saw but its actual price was Rs.7862/-, Knapsack Rs.4500/-against original price of Rs.2600/-; OP charged Rs.4000/-for potato digger, but its market rate is Rs.2000/- and they charged Rs.2000/-for leveller against its original price of Rs.1500/-. Thus, in this way, OP charged Rs.17,100/-more from complainant by showing excessive rates and even, OP sent equipments of inferior quality. OP sent lower grade items but charged rates more than MRP

c.c. no. 64 of 2021

against showing higher grade items with higher specifications through youtube videos, whatsapp and their website. It is further alleged that OP trapped complainant through their conversation skills and by camouflaging different brand names to their own by sticking their stickers/brand names above other companies hologram/ sticker/ items description plate and reselling the equipments by their brand name. Equipments sent by OP are not as per demand of complainant, these are of inferior quality and some are even rusted, but OP charged more price than the MRP fixed for these. Complainant made several requests to OP to redress his grievance or to refund the amount of Rs.1,53,000/-received from him but all in vain. Complainant also got registered complaint with NCH vide docket no.2419301 on 01.12.2020 and they suggested to file complaint before this Commission. Despite repeated calls and several requests made by complainant, OP did not bother to provide efficient services and to resolve the matter, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

 

c.c. no. 64 of 2021

3                                                         Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.04.2021, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                                        As per office report, notice containing copy of complaint alongwith relevant documents was sent to Opposite Party and it received back with report of Postal Authorities as ‘Refused’. It is observed that OP has sufficient notice of present complainant but it has intentionally refused to contest the claim of complainant. Therefore, vide order dated 26.10.2021, Opposite Party was proceeded against exparte.

5                                               Complainant was given sufficient opportunities to lead evidence to prove his pleadings. There is no rebuttal from OP side, therefore, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to Ex C-35 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                        We have heard the exparte arguments advanced by learned counsel for complainant and have carefully gone through and perused the affidavits & documents placed on record by respective party.

c.c. no. 64 of 2021

7                                                                  It is observed that case of the complainant is that he purchased some agriculture equipments from OP for Rs.1,55,000/-. OP gave discount of Rs.2000/- and he paid Rs.1,43,000/-to OP through UPI and part payment of Rs.10,000/-at the time of delivery. Complainant came in contact with OP through whatsapp business account and he purchased the product only on assurance of OP that their equipments would be of superior quality. Sales Manager of contacted complainant and he shared their website, images and videos from their social media accounts. Complainant shared his needs with specifications of equipments and OP assured that they would deliver the best quality equipments under asked price range. But when he received equipments, he was shocked to see that equipments sent by OP were rusted and were not as good as claimed. Even OP charged exaggerated price more than MRP. OP charged Rs.22,000/-for trolley which costs Rs.18,000/-; reaper for Rs.40,000/-but its original price was 36,000/-; OP charged Rs.12,500/-for chain saw but its actual price was Rs.7862/-, Knapsack Rs.4500/-against original price of Rs.2600/-; OP charged Rs.4000/-for potato digger, but its market rate is Rs.2000/- and they charged Rs.2000/-for leveller against its original price of Rs.1500/-. Meaning thereby, OP charged

c.c. no. 64 of 2021

Rs.17,100/-more from complainant by showing excessive rates. OP sent equipments of poor and inferior quality. OP sent lower grade items but charged rates more than MRP against showing higher grade items with higher specifications. OP cheated him by camouflaging different brand names to their own by sticking their stickers/brand names above other companies hologram/ sticker/ items description plate and reselling the equipments by their brand name. Equipments sent by OP are not as per demand, rather these are of inferior quality and some are even rusted.

8                                       Grievance of the complainant is that OP charged Rs.17,100/-extra from complainant regarding sale of trolley, reaper, chainsaw, knapsack, potato digger and leveller. Moreover, OP has cheated complainant by sending lower grade products by sharing higher grade items with higher specification through their social media accounts. It amounts to trade mal practice on their part. They have shown different brand names with their own stickers and holograms brand name over hologram or stickers of other companies or by changing the description place and reselling the equipments by their brand name. There is no doubt in the light of document Ex C-17 and 18 that OP sent unknown imported power tiller (7.5T) instead of Honda Machine

c.c. no. 64 of 2021

Power tiller to get future service from Honda authorized centre. Even OP did not provide any certificate or service book showing engine or chassis number of equipment to get government subsidy. Even assurance given by OP that their product would be of best quality with no rusting problem due to use of carbon quality irons was  totally false as equipments sent was rusty. Despite repeated phone calls and several requests, OP did not pay any heed to redress the grievance of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP.

9                                              Through his affidavit Ex C-1, complainant has reiterated his grievance. Ex C-2 copy of bill is sufficient to prove the fact that complainant is the consumer of OP and he purchased said equipments from OP. Careful perusal of documents Ex C-7 and Ex C-8 reveals the fact that product sent by OP was defective one. Ex C-15 to Ex 20 are copies of documents that reveal the pictures of products sent by OP were rusted and also show that original brand name or sticker was scratched from it. Ex C-20 is the picture of product on which serial number was mentioned, but after verification it was found that said serial number was not registered with the name of company. Ex C-22 is the picture of equipment ordered by complainant and Ex C-23 shows

c.c. no. 64 of 2021

the picture of product sent by opposite party. ExC-25 to C-27 are copies of pictures shared by OP showing higher quality of chain saw and Ex C-28 shows variation in price of said equipment and Ex C-29 is picture that reveals the inferior quality of chainsaw sent by OP to complainant. ExC-32 to 34 also show variation in price of equipments sent by Opposite party. Ex C-35 is copy of bank account statement of complainant that also proves the pleadings of complainant that amount of Rs.1,43,000/-was credited from his saving bank account number 00000030957887807 to the account of Rahul Chhibber through UPI transfer. Opposite party has failed to clear the discrepancies regarding variations in price of products and quality of products shown in videos and of original products sent by them. OP could not justify its position regarding all such issues.  Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings. All documents placed on record by complainant are authentic and are beyond any doubt.

10                                      From the careful perusal of evidence and record placed on file, it is observed that there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in sending defective rusted equipments of poor quality to complainant against the highly specified images shown on their site and

c.c. no. 64 of 2021

youtube videos. Opposite party is also guilty of charging excessive prices from complainant and has breached the trust of its customer. Despite repeated requests, act of OP in not resolving the matter amounts to trade mal practice. Had OP taken effective measures of checking the product before sending the equipments to complainant or had taken appropriate steps earlier on first complaint made by complainant at the initial stage, then  fate of complaint would have different or perhaps there would have been no complaint. But OP have indulged in wrong practice in dealing with its customers and failed to render effective and efficient services, that amounts to deficiency in service.

11                                               In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP and  Opposite Party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1,53,000/-(one lakh and fifty three thousands) received from complainant and take back the equipments sent to complainant at its own transition cost. Opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/-to complainant as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him alongwith Rs.5,000/-as expenditure incurred by him on litigation. Complainant

c.c. no. 64 of 2021

is also directed to return all the equipments to Opposite Party on receipt of entire award amount from OP. Compliance of this order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Commission

Dated : 29.04 .2022

(Vishav Kant Garg)       (Param Pal Kaur)                        

Member                          Member