SH. SUBHASH CHABRA. V/S SANJEEV KUMAR. - Consumer Court Case

Haryana

Panchkula

CC/229/2022

SANJEEV KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH. SUBHASH CHABRA. - Opp.Party(s)

DHARAM PAL CHHACHHIA

17 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

Consumer Complaint No	:	229 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	27.06.2022
Date of Decision	:	17.07.2023

Sanjeev Kumar son of Sh. Pyare Lal, resident of Flat No.116, GH-2, Sector-31, Panchkula Haryana, O/o RCS Haryana, Sector-2, Panchkula.

….Complainant

Versus

Sh. Subhash Chhabra, Shop No.71, New Grain Market, Badi Road, Balachaur, Nawasahar-144521, Punjab. ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

Before: Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member

Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member.

For the Parties: Sh.Dharam Pal Chhachhia, Advocate for the complainant.

OP already ex-parte vide order dated 12.09.2022.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1. Brief facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant intending to purchase a projector had made search on different sites as found on the internet, wherein one site i.e. Sketra was found providing the projector along with features and configurations as required by the complainant and accordingly, an order no.20846 was placed on 02.03.2021 for the projector of a Sketra D 40 Android 4K Projector SKU D40 A. An advance payment of Rs.19,999/- was made as purchase price of the said projector. The OP had provided the said projector to the complainant on 08.03.2021. After the receipt of the projector, the same was found lacking in the features/configurations as ordered on 02.03.2021. It is alleged that the quality of the product/projector was not good. An email was sent by the complainant on 09.03.2021 and 10.03.2021, through

2. Notice was issued to the OP through registered post, which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP; hence, it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 12.09.2022.

3. To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.

5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in the affidavit of the complainant(Annexure C-A) and contended that the OP had sent the wrong projector having different features/configuration, which were contrary to order no.20846 dated 02.03.2021. It is contended that the projector as sent by OP was belonging to version 6 and not 9 upgrade and further, the pick-up was also not clear. It is contended that the OP had failed to pick the wrong product as sent by it and also to refund the amount and thus, prayer for acceptance of the complainant has been made by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6. The OP has preferred not to contest the present complaint by remaining absent despite service of notice and accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.09.2022 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7. It is evident as per Annexure C-1 that the order no.20846 was placed by the complainant on 02.03.2021 for the delivery of Sketra D 40 Android 4K Projector SKU D40A and payment of Rs.19,999/- was made in advance. As per Annexure C-2, the projector was received by the complainant from OP on 08.03.2021, which upon its checking was found having different features/configuration. The complainant as per Annexure C-3, sent an email to OP on 09.03.2021 pointing out the following deficiencies:-

i. That the projector as sent by OP was belonging to version 6 and not 9 upgrade.

ii. The picture was not clear from near.

iii. Fans volume was very loud.

8. The OP was requested by the complainant vide said email dated 09.03.2021(Annexure C-3) to pick up the product and refund the amount to him. A reminder was sent by the complainant on 12.03.2021 vide email vide Annexure C-4. The OP responded vide email dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure C-5) asking the complainant to wait for 10-12 days for the solution of his problem. However, the OP has not redressed the grievance of the complainant by taking his wrong product from him and refunding the amount of Rs.19,999/-. An email dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure C-6) and notice(Annexure C-7) followed by legal notice (Annexure C-8) as sent by the complainant to OP have failed to evoke any positive response from OP. As stated above, the version of the complainant is uncontroverted and unrebutted; therefore, we are of the unanimous view that the OP was deficient while rendering the services to the complainant; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

9. As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-