BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Aradhana Chaturvedi w/o Sh. Ajay Chaturvedi resident of House No.259, Block-B, P.U. Campus, Sector 14, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                           V E R S U S

1.      Rakesh Kumar, Ram Traders (Registered), D-55/2, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi.

2.      Kismat Singh, H.No.134, Village Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh UT.

                                  ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL        PRESIDENT

              DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

              SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Ajay Chaturvedi, Authorised representative of complainant.

OP-1 exparte

Sh. Kismat, OP-2 in person.

PER DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL,  MEMBER

             Succinctly put, the complainant, came to know from the advertisement dated 3.10.2009 in the Dainik Bhaskar newspaper with regard to the sale of machines/dyes for making candles wherein it was also mentioned that the raw material and training was free at Delhi rate and to contact Chandigarh : 9779115526. When the complainant made contact on the aforesaid mobile, Mr. Kismat Singh (OP-2) gave the head office address of the OP with mobile No.09211208499 and S.B.I a/c No.10202009919.  When contact was made at the aforesaid mobile, OP asked her to deposit Rs.2000/- in the aforesaid account and thereafter the machines/dyes for making candles would be sent and again deposit Rs.2025/- after receipt of the items. She deposited Rs.2000/- in the aforesaid a/c on 9.10.2009 but thereafter she was again asked to deposit the amount of Rs.2,025/- which she did but still the items were not sent causing her great mental agony and harassment. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.             OP-1 did not appear despite due service, hence it was proceeded against exparte.

3.             OP-2 appeared in person and filed his short reply admitting therein that the husband of the complainant contacted him over phone as well as personally and asked him from where he had brought the machines upon which he gave the address and phone No. of Ram Traders (OP-1) whereafter instead of purchasing the machines from him, he intended to purchase the same from OP-1. Thereafter, the husband of the complainant  contacted OP-1 and deposited the money in their account. Pleading that neither any relief has been sought against him nor was there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on his part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 

4.             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.             We have heard the parties and have also perused the record. 

6.             In our opinion there is no fault of OP-2.  OP-2 only gave to the complainant, the phone number and account number of OP-1 and Annexure 2 and Annexure 3 records that the complainant had deposited Rs.4025/- in the account number 10202009919 of OP-1 at State Bank of India, Delhi for the purchase of the said items but OP-1 neither has delivered the items nor has refunded the said amount till date.  In this case it seems that OP-1 has given advertisement in the newspaper willfully and intentionally to sell all the items alongwith raw material and free training at the rate of Delhi.  It is not a case where there is a delay in rendering service only but non delivery of goods after lapse of reasonable time, even after getting the full payment in advance and the complainant has been duped under the garb of efficient product and raw material alongwith free entry at the rate of Delhi which tantamounts to unfair trade practice on account of which the complainant has been harassed at every channel since the payment was made by him and he has also faced harassment and humiliation which was least expected from the OP-1 after taking advance money.  The complainant has under went mental agony and suffering with humiliation during the entire period as till now he could not get the items alongwith free training at the rate of Delhi as well his money back

7.             In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complainant has succeeded in providing that there was an unfair trade practice adopted by the OP-1 and the complaint therefore succeeds and is accordingly allowed.  The OP-1 is directed to refund to the complainant a sum of Rs.4,025/- i.e. the total amount deposited by her vide Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-3 for the machines/dyes, raw material and free training at the rate of Delhi for making candles within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The OP-1 shall also pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.4,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by her alongwith Rs.550/- as costs of litigation within the aforesaid period failing which the OP-1 would be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 5.11.2009, till the payment is actually made to the complainant.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.