Punjab

Faridkot

CC/22/23

Neetu Sachdeva - Complainant(s)

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gurpreet Singh Chauhan

28 Mar 2023

ORDER

                                                             

DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                       23 of 2022

Date of Institution :       18.02.2022

Date of Decision :          28.03.2023

Neetu Sachdeva aged about 34 years, wife of Gurwinder Singh, resident of Street No.5, Puri Colony, Ferozepur Road, Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

Reliance Retail Limited, at 3^rd Floor, Court House, Lokmanya Tilak Marg, Dhobi Talao, Mumbai – 400002, Maharashtra, India through its Managing Director.

             ......OP

Complaint under Section 35 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Quorum:     Smt Priti Malhotra, President,

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member,

                     Sh Vishav Kant Garg, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Gurpreet Chauhan, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                    Sh Satish Kumar Jain, Ld Counsel for OP.

(ORDER) 

( Priti Malhotra, President)

 

cc no.-23 of 2022

                                                  Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Ops seeking directions to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.18,625/- with interest and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2                                              Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 09.01.2022, complainant purchased a Michael Kors-Tote Bag size S of white colour from online marketing app AJIO of OP against order ID No.FL0343884097 for Rs.18,625/-and made payment through his debit card. Complainant received the ordered product delivered by OP on 17.01.2022, but was surprised to find that colour of bag was grey though she placed order for white colour. Complainant immediately raised return request stating the reason that wrong product was delivered and also uploaded pictures of delivered bag. Return ID RT56485440 was issued by OP and it was kept pending for verification of order of complainant. OP also sent the mail regarding return request of complainant. Complainant has alleged that

cc no.-23 of 2022

OP cited wrong message in mail dated 17.01.2022 that complainant did not like the product, but in reality OP in order to cheat the complainant and to swipe off their old stock, deliberately sent the bag of grey colour to her and thereafter, OP cancelled the return request whereas no such request was forwarded by complainant to OP. On 18.01.2022, complainant again raised the return request  and same was processed by OP with message that their courier person would pick up the product and after checking the same, refund would be initiated, but  when their courier person came, he refused to pick up the product on ground of colour mismatching, whereas complainant has already mentioned in her previous return request that wrong item was delivered. On 19.01.2022, complainant raised complaint but till date, OP did not resolve the matter. Complainant also served legal notice on 20.01.2022 wherein requested OP to redress her grievance and then OP picked up the parcel from complainant and promised to deliver the right product as soon as possible, but nothing was done by OP. OP neither provided the placed order nor refunded the amount and also has deprived him of amount given by complainant to OP. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice and has caused huge

cc no.-23 of 2022

harassment and mental agony to her. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. Hence, the complaint.

3                                              Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 22.02.2022, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                             On receipt of notice, OP filed written statement wherein it has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. However, it is admitted by OP that complainant placed an order on 09.01.2022 for a while coloured bag of Rs.18,625/-. OP also admitted the allegation of complainant that complainant raised a return request on the ground that wrong product was sent to her. It is averred that image of product uploaded by complainant was not visible and therefore, they sent e-mail to her for uploading the images of AJIO order with price tag, but OP was surprised to see legal notice sent by complainant. It is further averred

cc no.-23 of 2022

that product returned by complainant is a Non AJIO product which is different from the one sent by them to complainant, but OP re-evaluated the issue and as a goodwill gesture, initiated a refund for a sum of Rs.18,625/- on 21.03.2022 towards the complainant, which was duly received by the complainant on 23.03.2022. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs is made.

5                                              Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-10 and documents Ex C-1 to Ex C-9 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6                                                In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, Ld Counsel for OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Anirban Chatterjee as Ex OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 to ExOP-7 and then closed the same on behalf of Opposite Party.                                                      7                                                After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by complainant as well as OP, it

cc no.-23 of 2022

 

is observed that case of the complainant is that she placed an order for a bag of white colour of above mentioned brand. Worth of bag was Rs.18,625/-. Complainant received delivery of said product on 17.01.2022, but was shocked to see that colour of bag was grey and it was not white as per order given by her. Complainant has alleged that OP deliberately sent the grey colour bag to her only to swipe out their old stock. She immediately raised return request, but OP did not redress her grievance. Legal notice served by complainant through her counsel also did not work. OP neither refunded her amount nor sent the right product. Being aggrieved by the ignorant attitude of OP, she approached this Commission and reiterated her grievance. In reply, OP admitted the fact that complainant placed an order for white coloured bag and also admitted the fact of receiving the cost price of Rs.18,625/. OP also brought before this Commission that on request of complainant, they have refunded the entire amount on account of cost price of said product to her and now, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

 

 

cc no.-23 of 2022

 

 8                                We have keenly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant as well as OP in the light of evidence led by respective parties with special reference to order dated 09.01.2022 placed by complainant that clearly reveals the fact that  complainant purchased the said product from OP and it is admitted that  opposite party received the amount of Rs.18,625/- from the complainant as cost of said bag. Ex C-4 legal notice also reiterates the grievance of complainant and it is clear that the opposite party has not provided appropriate services to the complainant and did not resolve the grievance of the complainant on requests made by her at initial stage.  

9                                              It is observed that refund of Rs.18,625/- i.e cost price of said bag has been made by OP to complainant on 23.03.2022 i.e after having intimation regarding institution of present complaint. There is no doubt that complainant has suffered huge harassment at the hands of OP due to deficiency in service on their part in not sending the exact product as per order placed by her and OP also caused much delay in making refund of her amount. Had OP taken

cc no.-23 of 2022

 

effective and appropriate steps at the initial stage while sending the ordered product to complainant or had they redressed the grievance of complainant on her first complaint with them, there would have been no complaint at all. Complainant has placed on record sufficient and cogent evidence and all documents placed on record by her are authentic, beyond any doubt and prove the case of complainant.

10                                  Therefore, in the absence of appropriate justification on the part of OP regarding sending the wrong product and for delay in making refund by OP, and in the light of evidence and documents relied upon by the complainant as well as OPs, claim of the complainant regarding harassment suffered by her, stands proved. Accordingly, complaint filed by complainant is hereby accepted with a direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/- to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her and as cost of litigation incurred by her. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant besides being entitled to proceed under provisions as per Sections 71 and 72 of the Consumer Protection Act,

cc no.-23 of 2022

is entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per anum on the decreetal amount from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Commission :

Dated: 28.03.2023

 

          (Vishav Kant Garg)    (Param Pal Kaur)    (Priti Malhotra)

Member                     Member                                 President