DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 14th day of February, 2023
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of filing: 27/07/2022
CC/134/2022
Ashwinkumar.R
S/o Unnikrishnan
Saras House
Harisankar Road
Tharekkad, Palakkad - Complainant
(By Adv. P. Shibu)
Vs
Rajeesh. K. V
S/o K. V. Padmanabhan
Kizhakke veetil, Nalamthadam
Ariyil P. O
Pattuvam
Kannur – 670 143 - Opposite party
(Ex-parte)
O R D E R
By Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member
1. Pleadings of the Complainant.
The complainant entrusted the opposite party with the work of a kitchen cupboard for his flat in Bengaluru. The total amount agreed was Rs.53,500/- and the payment was made by way of Google Pay on various dates during April, 2022. Since the opposite party failed to do the work as promised, the complainant demanded refund of the amount paid. As the opposite party didn't pay the amount so far, the complainant has approached this Commission seeking orders for getting the refund of Rs.53,500/-, compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for the financial loss and mental agony apart from the cost of proceedings.
2. Notice was issued to the opposite party. They didn't enter appearance and hence was set ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents, Ext. A1 to A10 as evidence. Ext. A1 is the copy of the account relationship summary of the complainant with HDFC bank Palakkad, A2 is the copy of statement of his savings account with the bank, A3 is the copy of the legal notice issued to the opposite party and A4 is the postal receipt. Ext A5 to A10 are the print outs of Google pay transactions made on various dates.
4. The Ext. A2 and A5 to A10 are the documentary evidence for the amount 53500/- paid by the complainant to the opposite party by way of Google pay as mentioned in the proof affidavit. Though he caused issuance of lawyer notice (Ext. A3 &A4) to opposite party it was returned with endorsement "not claimed ".
5. In the absence of counter arguments from the side of opposite party, we have relied only on the evidence adduced by the complainant to reach any conclusion in the matter. Though there is no written agreement between the parties, transfer of money to the account of the opposite party by the complainant is an indication for the existence of a deal between them. Further, there is no evidence to show that the money so transferred has been returned to the complainant. Hence, there exists a prima-facie case against the opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is allowed, ordering the following reliefs.
- The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 53500/- to the complainant along with interest @10% pa from the date of payment till the date of refund.
- The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 10000/ as compensation &
- Rs. 5000/- as cost.
Pronounced in open court on this the 14th day of February, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
Appendix
Documents marked from the side of the Complainant:
Ext. A1: Account Relationship Summary of the complainant dated 30/04/2022.
Ext. A2: Bank account statement of the complainant for the period from 01/04/2022 to 30/04/2022.
Ext. A3.Copy of legal notice issued dated 23/06/2022.
Ext. A4: Postal Receipt dated 23/06/2022.
Ext. A5 to A10: Print outs of Google pay transactions on various dates in April 2022.
Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil
Witness examined- Nil
Cost- Nil
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
