Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                                             Complaint No. : 544.

                                                                             Instituted on     : 17.09.2021.

                                                                             Decided on       : 08.04.2022.

Ishani age 21 years, d/o Sh. Atul Kumar Goyal R/o H.No.618/3, Babra Mohalla, Near Old CIA Staff Street, Rohtak, 124001.

                                                                             .......................Complainant.

                                                Vs.

1. Reliance Retail Limited Plot no.1, Dwarka City Centre, Dwarka City Centre Mall, Sec-13, Dwarka, Delhi, 110075, Landmark: Near Pragati Public School, Delhi, Del 110075(Seller)
2. Reliance Retail Limited Shed no.77/80, Indian Corporation Godown Mankoli Naka, Village Dapode Taluka, Bhiwandi Distt. Thane Maharashtra PIN 421302(Manufacturer).
3. AJIO, C/o Reliance Retail Limited, SS Plaza, 74/2 Outer Ring Road, 29^th Main Road, BTM 1^st Stage, BTM Layout, Bangalore 560068, Karnataka, INDIA.(E-Commerce Entity of Seller & Manufacturer).

                                                                             ……….Opposite parties.

          COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Opposite party No.1 to 3 exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased the product named ‘RIO’ Floral A-Line Dress Black-XL size having order no.#FL0276308863 on dated 02.07.2021 via AJIO Mobile Application i.e E-commerce Entity . The payment of the product i.e. Rs.261.51/- was made through online medium i.e. UPI Payment & AJIO Wallet on 2^nd July 2021  and  the seller of the product is opposite party n/o.1 and the product was delivered by the Carrier named XPRESSBESS. The above mentioned product is manufactured by Reliance Trends Brand named ‘RIO’ under the care of Reliance Retail Limited i.e. respondent no.2 manufacturer and was sold through respondent no.1, the seller . The complainant bought the dress relying on the name of ‘Reliance & face value of respondent no.1 & 2 and the product description showing the product as -100% cotton on the AJIO App i.e. respondent no.3.   But when the complainant received the dress, she was highly disappointed because the dress was majorly Polyster Material(52% Polyseter) and not according to the description & marketing done on the E-commerce platform AJIO App i.e. respondent no.3.  The complainant put a return request on the AJIO App i.e. respondent no.3 and the respondents picked up the product on 12 July 2021 via Return Id: RT39774836. But despite repeated requests and serving of legal notice via E-mail to the respondents, no amount has been refunded to the complainant.  The act of opposite parties of giving wrong description regarding the type of the fabric of the Apparels is clear negligence on the part of respondents and selling them to the public amounts to “misleading advertisement” and unfair trade practice. Moreover, respondent no.1 is causing pecuniary loss to the complainant by not refunding her amount despite repeated requests of the complainant. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay back the product amount of Rs.261.51/-, to pay exemplary compensation of Rs.200000/- on account of causing legal injury by defeating the legal right of the complaining and negligence on the part of respondents and also to pay Rs.50000/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant.

2 .               After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice issued to opposite party No.1 to 3 through registered post not received back served either served or unserved. As such opposite party No.1 to 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.12.2021 of this Commission. 

3.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and closed his evidence on dated 11.02.2022.

4.                We have heard the complainant and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                In the present case, it is not disputed that as per invoice Ex.C1, complainant had purchased a product i.e. Floral A Line dress for a sum of Rs.261.51 through the website of opposite party No.3, sold by opposite party No.1 and manufactured by opposite party No.2.  Ex.C2 is the delivery voucher. As the complainant was not satisfied with the alleged item so she made a return request and Ex.C3 to Ex.C6 are the documents regarding return request. The grievance of the complainant is that the product description showing the product as 100% cotton on the AJIO App i.e. respondent no.3.  But when the complainant received the dress, the same was majorly Polyster Material(52% Polyseter) and not according to the description & marketing done on the E-commerce platform AJIO App i.e. respondent no.3. It is also submitted that despite return of the alleged product/dress, no refund has been made in the account of complainant. The document Ex.C6 shows that the refund has already been made by the opposite party No.3 and the same will be reflected in the AJIO Wallet of the complainant within 48 hours but as per the complainant no amount has been refunded in her account. She also made email Ex.C7 in  this regard.  On the other hand, opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that they have nothing to say in the matter and therefore, the allegation regarding non-refund of amount of the complainant stands proved. However, complainant has failed to place on record any document to prove that product description showing on the AJIO App. is that the product was 100% cotton. No product description is mentioned in the bill or the return voucher. Hence no relief can be granted against the wrong product description as mentioned by the complainant in her complaint. However, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.3 for non refunding the amount of product despite successful return of the same.

8.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties No.3 to refund the amount of Rs.261.51/-(Rs. Two hundred & sixty one and fifty one paise only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of return i.e. 09.07.2021 till its payment and shall also pay Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.  

9.                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:

08.04.2022.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ………………………………..

                                                                        Tripti Pannu, Member.

                                                          ………………………………..

                                                                        Shyam Lal, Member.