Bipuji Thapa, S/o-Chinta Mani Thapa filed a consumer case on 01 Mar 2017 against Shree Balaji Sansthan in the Debagarh Consumer Court. The case no is CC/18/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 02 Mar 2017.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DEOGARH.
C.C.NO.18/2016.
Present : Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Sri Pratap Chandra Mahapatra, Member and Smt. Jayanti Pradhan, Member.
Bapuji Thapa,
S/O.Chintamani Thapa,
Dist/-Deogarh. …. Complainant.
Versus
Shree Balaji Santhan,
Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-110015. …. Opp.Party.
For the Complainant: Nemo.
For the Opp.Party : None.
DATE OF HEARING ; 22.02.2017, DATE OF ORDERS;01.03.2017.
SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA, PRESIDENT; - Brief facts of the case is that the complainant after seeing an advertisement given by the Opp.Party through S.M.S ordered for the supply of a “Samsung Galaxy 4G “mobile Handset. After receiving the order the Opp.Party has sent a parcel as per the address of the complainant vide parcel No.YA102677335IN and received the cost of parcel amounting to Rs.3200/- on dtd.26.4.2016. After opening the parcel the complainant found a” Hanuman Chalisha Yantra” in place of the Mobile Handset against which the order was placed by the complainant . Then the complainant immediately informed the matter to the Opp.Party over telephone and asked for the supply of proper material as per the order. But in vain. After waiting for a long period the complainant again approached the Opp.Party for either supply of the mobile handset as specified in the order or return back the money which was paid against the order. But the Opp.Party did not respond to the complainant in spite of several requests. Hence, this case.
Heard from the complainant only .The O.P did not appeared in this case, hence made exparte hearing. The complainant in his hearing corroborates the matter in the complaint petition.
From the above it is ascertained that the complainant has placed an order for a Samsung Galaxy 4G Mobile from the Opp.Party after going through an after placed by the Opp.Party . Accordingly the O.P has sent a parcel vide No.YA102677335IN which was received by the complainant on dtd.26.4.2016 on payment of Rs.3200/- in the Post Office. After opening the parcel the Samsung 4G Mobile Handset was substituted by a Hanuman Chalisa Yantra by the Opp.Party which is a clear example-le of Unfair Trade Practice along with a Breach of Trust”. The Opp.Party has failed to keep his promise and played the game of ‘Unfair Trade Practice’ U/S-2(1)(r) of Consumer Protection Act-1986, which is inevitable in the era of online shopping.
Again the Opp.Party did not respond to the complainant even after several contacts were tried by the complainant to either provide him the right good or return the money. It shows the ill intension of the Opp.Party, who has played a foul play which leads to deficiency in service U/S-2(1)(g) Consumer Protection Act-1986 and breach of trust.
Hence I am inclined to order as follows:
Complaint Petition is allowed. OP is directed to refund Rs.3,200/- (Rupees three thousand and two hundred)only and Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) as Compensation for mental agony and harassment. Also OP shall have to pay Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards litigation cost within 45 days of receiving of this order ,failing which the complainant is liberty to proceed in due process of law.
Office is directed to supply the first copies of the order to the parties free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the receipt thereof.
Order pronounced in the open court today i.e.on 1st day of March,2017 under my hand and seal of this Forum.
I agree, I agree,
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
Dictated and Corrected
by me.
PRESIDENT.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.