Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 280.
Instituted on : 12.04.2021.
Decided on : 13.04.2022.
Kul Bhushan Jain s/o Sh. Sunder Lal Jain aged about 71 years and resident of Old Anaj Mandi, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
Rediff.COM INDIA LIMITED, Mahalaxmi Engg. Estate, L.J,Cross Road No.1, Mahim(W), Mumbai-400016.
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.
Argued by: Complainant in person.
Opposite party exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that opposite party company is an active player in “Internet Marketing” and has been selling diverse type of products through its “Internet Marketing Platform”. The complainant has been registered by the respondent company as one of its customers through his email address kbjain12@rediffmail.com. Opposite party sent an advertisement message, appeared on the site in the month of May 2020, which was for sale of “Black Eerphone EO-hs330 For Samsung Galaxy” with the offer of “buy one and get one free” for Rs.299/- and also “2600mAh Power bank” with similar offer of “buy one and get one free” for Rs.298”. Complainant placed his order online for both these items and a bill for total amount of Rs.695/- was raised by the respondent company against this order. The above stated amount was duly paid by the complainant through his credit card and duly received by the respondent company on the same day. But the items received against the alleged order were neither according to the specification as advertised by the respondent company on its site nor they were supplied to the complainant in time. Above all, all the items were of extremely low standard and at best these were just equivalent to ‘SCRAP’. Only one piece of Earphone was supplied and that too of an extremely poor quality. It was a simple white coloured piece which is available at a price of Rs.10 to Rs.20/-. Power bank were of different colours. One is black and another is white. The white piece is nothing but a pure junk which is totally charge less. The black power bank is in a broken condition and can never be set to make it usable. The packaging was also of extremely poor quality. Complainant served a legal notice to the opposite party but to no response. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly he directed to pay a sum of Rs.5695/- i.e. Rs.695/- for the payment made by him towards the invoice and Rs.5000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2 . After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party through registered post and after seeing the track report, the tem delivery was confirmed but none appeared on behalf of opposite party. As such opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.10.2021 of this Commission.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence on dated 29.11.2021.
4. We have heard the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the documents placed on record by the complainant, it is observed that complainant has placed an order for Black Earphone Eo-Hs330 for Samsung Qty 2 and price Rs.347/- and 2600mAh Power Bank – Buy 1 get 1 free, Qty 1 for Rs.348/- and paid a total amount of Rs.695/- and a bill Ex.C1 is placed on record. As per Ex.C2 the alleged items were shipped by the opposite party. But as per the complainant, the items received against the alleged order were neither according to the specifications as advertised by the respondent company on its site nor they were upto standard and the same were equivalent to ‘SCRAP’. Only one piece of Earphone was supplied and that too of an extremely poor quality and Power bank were also of different colours and are totally useless. The packaging was also of extremely poor quality. Hence as per the complainant the items sent by the opposite party were neither according to specifications nor usable. Complainant also sent a legal notice Ex.C5 to the opposite party but no response was given by the opposite party. It is also on record that opposite party did not appear before this Commission despite service and as such it is presumed that it has nothing to say in the matter and therefore, all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite party regarding delivery of poor products by the opposite parties stands proved. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.695/-(Rupees six hundred and ninety five only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 12.04.2021 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.3000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.04.2022.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Shyam Lal, Member.
