Date of filing :  05.04.2019

Date of Judgement : 24.09.2019

Mr. Ayan Sinha, Hon’ble Member.

          This is a complaint made by Smt. Samrajny Konar, daughter of Subhash Chandra Konar of 22/3/2, Mondal Para Lane, P. S. – Baranagar, Kolkata – 700 090 against Sai Ram Teleshoping represented by its proprietor Manoj Gupta having its office at 19/B, Chetla Hat Road, P. S. – Chetla, Kolkata – 700 027 ( OP  ) praying for direction upon the OP to refund the purchase amount of Rs.1700/- along with  compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- or any other reliefs as entitled to law and equity.

 Facts in brief :

The complainant being allured by the online and offline advertisement of the OP, who is engaged in online business  of hot slim belts/hot shapers purchased the product hot slim belt/hot shapers. As stated in the complaint petition that the OP claimed through online and offline business that this scientifically proven product “Hot  shaper”  reduces body mass accumulated over years in the abdomen and other part of the body without any side effect within three months from the date of use with a rider of 100% money back in case of  unsatisfactory result. Against payment of Rs. 1700/- the product was delivered at complainant’s address on 05.02.2017. The complainant started using the hot slim belt/hot shaper with an immense hope for  reducing the accumulated fat but the same was found  torn within four to five days and left with no use. Thereafter, the complainant time and again called upon the OP. Even after acknowledging the complaint the OP neglected the complainant and failed to replace the torn belt with a new one. As stated in the petition of complaint, the onus mandated upon the OP to refund the money back to the complainant as guaranteed and to this  she has also sent an e – mail dated 21.08.2018 for refund of Rs. 1700/- as per guaranteed offer by the OP.

          The complainant also took initiative to resolve the dispute through mediation cell of Consumer Affairs Department but failed to resolve due to the absence of the OP on the date fixed.

          Thus, the complainant  filed this case alleging  deficiency of service on the part of OP. Notices were served upon the OP. But the OP did not contest this case by filing written version and so the matter was heard exparte against them. Complainant by filing a petition prayed for treating the complaint petition as her evidence.

 Main point for determination :

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer.
2. Whether there  is any deficiency of service on the part of OP.
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.

Decision with reasons :

          All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and repetition of facts.

Point No.(i) :

The complainant has filed a Xerox copy of invoice no.094 dated 05.02.2017 issued by OP which reveals  that she has paid Rs.1500/-  for the product Hot Shaper and Rs. 200/- for the delivery charges  amounting to total of Rs. 1700/-. The original invoice was also produced at the time of final hearing. So, there is no doubt that the complainant is a consumer and as such point no. (i) answered accordingly.

Point No.(ii) & (iii) :

On perusal  of the copy of invoice No. 094 dated 05.02.2017 issued by OP which is already in record and also the original invoice, it reveals that although  it is clearly mentioned in the invoice under money back policy that  25% will be deducted from M.R.P at the time of  money back but no documents have been filed by the complainant showing any correspondences with the OP  Sai Ram Tele shopping. Instead of that  a copy of email dated 21.08.2018 addressed to

          Now the fact  remains, if really the product was torn within  four to five days from the date of delivery i.e. on  05.02.2017 then why the complainant remained silent for  18 months and sent an email to customer care of hot shaper only on 21.08.2018. The complainant has not filed any scrap of evidence/any communications with the OP immediately after the product was torn from where it can be ascertained that the product was really torn within four to five days from the date of delivery. The complainant has not filed any warrantee card also for the product in question.

          So we are of the view, that the complainant has failed to prove her allegations against the OP for deficiency of service and therefore, instant petition is liable to be dismissed and the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.

          As such Point no. (ii) & (iii) are answered accordingly.

Hence,

               Ordered

          CC/217/2019 and the same is dismissed ex-parte against the Opposite Party.