Haryana

Karnal

CC/73/2020

Sukhdev Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shoppers Stop Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Anshul Chaudhary

28 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 73 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.31.01.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:28.04.2023

 

Sukhdev Sharma son of Shri Rampal Sharma, resident of VPO, Baragaon, District Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Shoppers Stop Limited, Umang Tower, 5^th floor, Mindscape, off link road, Malad (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra-400 064.

 

2.     Delhivery Courier Service, plot no.84, Sector-44, Gurgaon through its proprietor.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

          

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

Shri Baljeet Chawla, counsel for the OP no.1.

OP no.2 given up.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant had purchased a Mens Buckle Closure Formal Belt of Ven Hussain(online) from the OP no.1, vide order ID 165509979, for a sum of Rs.1799/-. The company made advertisement that the said belt is genuine and is of Ven Hussain. When the said belt was delivered to the complainant and when complainant opened the packet, complainant shocked that the said belt was of local quality. Complainant sent e-mail to the OP no.1 for returning of the said belt and then OP no.1 took back the said belt and issued a slip for the same date 19.11.2019 and assured that they would deliver the said belt with genuine one to the complainant after 5-10 days. Thereafter, complainant many times contacted the OP no.1 to deliver the said original belt but OP no.1 every time postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant had placed an online order for a Van Heusen Belt from the online portal of the OP, vide order ID 166509979 dated 13.11.2019. The said product was duly delivered to complainant by the OP through OP no.2 on 16.11.2019. On 16.111.2019, complainant had placed a return request to the OP by alleged that the product delivered to him was of a local quality and therefore, sought to return the same. Upon receiving the request of complainant, OP accordingly sent their pickup agent to retrieve the product from the complainant on 19.11.2019. Upon receiving the product on return, the concerned staffs/teams of the OP realized that the product returned back to them was a totally different product with a different brand than the actual product which was originally delivered to the complainant. Due to the fact that the product received on return by the OP belonged to the different brand named as Levi’s which was not even available in the retail store from which the original product was initially delivered to the complainant. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the OP hold the process of refund in favour of the complainant due to delivery of wrong product in guise of return of the original product delivered initially to him by the OP. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 given up by the complainant being unnecessary party, vide his separate statement dated 19.03.2021.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1/A, copy of customer copy Ex.C1, copy of email Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 02.11.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Abhijit Suman Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 07.02.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel of the OP no.1 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, and submitted that he has placed an order for purchase of a belt of Van Heusen company on 13.112019 amounting to Rs.1799/- from the website of OP No.1. On receipt of the delivery, it was found that the said belt is of local quality. Complainant sent e-mail to the OP no.1 for returning of the said belt, OP no.1 received back the said belt and issued a slip for the same date 19.11.2019 and assured that they will deliver the said belt after 5-10 days but OP neither delivered the belt in question nor refund the cost of the belt and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per-contra, learned counsel for OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that on the request of complainant, OP sent their pickup agent to retrieve the product from the complainant on 19.11.2019. Upon receiving the product on return, the concerned staffs/teams of the OP realized that the product returned back to them was of totally different product with a different brand than the actual product which was originally delivered to the complainant. Due to the fact that the product received on return by the OP belonged to the different brand named as Levi’s which was not even available in the retail store from which the original product was initially delivered to the complainant. The OP hold the process of refund in favour of the complainant due to delivery of wrong product and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint

11.           Admittedly the complainant had placed an order for purchase for purchase of a belt with the OP no.1,

12.           It is evident from the customer copy Ex.C1 dated 19.11.2019, complainant has returned the belt in question to delivery boy. It is also evident from the email Ex.C2 dated 04.12.2019, there is a conversation regarding the wrong product. The grievance of the complainant is that he had received the belt of other brand and on the request of complainant,  OP received the same back but till today neither OP delivered the belt nor refunded the cost of the same.

13.           As per the version of the OP, the belt received back from the complainant was totally different product with a different brand than the actual product which was originally delivered to the complainant. To prove its version, OP relied upon the affidavit of Abhijit Suman Ex.OP1/A, except this affidavit, OP has not placed on file any other documents to prove its version that the belt received by its agent was of different quality. Hence the evidence produced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

14.           As per version of the complainant, the cost of the belt in question was Rs.1799/- and this fact is not denied by the OP. Hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.1799/- alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, etc.

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.1799/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till its realization.  We further direct the OP no.1 to pay Rs.2500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.2200/- for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Both the OPs are jointly severally. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:28.04.2023

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                  Member                         Member