Orissa

Koraput

CC/15/40

Sri S. Trinath Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smart Shopping Network Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P.K Patra

26 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM
KORAPUT AT JEYPORE,ODISHA
 
Complaint Case No. CC/15/40
 
1. Sri S. Trinath Rao
Backside of PMG Hostel , near Aurobindo School, At/Po/Dist. Koraput
Koraput
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Smart Shopping Network Pvt. Ltd.
G-58 Main Road, Bikash Marg , Delhi, 110092
New Delhi
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. BIPIN CHANDRA MOHAPATRA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. MANAS RANJAN BISOI MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Nibedita Rath MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:Sri P.K Patra, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: Self, Advocate
Dated : 26 Sep 2015
Final Order / Judgement

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that on going through advertisements in TV and Print Media, the complainant placed order for a Spy Pen and its accessories with the OP on 26.12.2014 for a value of Rs.2140/- and the OP delivered the articles through Posts vide COD No.CD046727259IN BPCOD dt.07.1.2015 on payment of like amount.  It is submitted that to the utter surprise of the complainant neither the Spy Pen nor the Adaptor/USB Cable was functioning in spite of best quality of product assured by the OP.  On repeated request of the complainant for replacement of the articles with a new set or refund its price, the OP did not listen.  It is also further submitted that the OP has not supplied bill and warranty card in the Parcel and also failed to provide service causing financial loss to the complainant.  Thus alleging defective goods and deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to refund Rs.2140/ towards cost of the product and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum to try over this case.  It is contended that the complainant has never placed any order with them on 26.12.14 and the entire complaint is fabricated.  The OP also contended that they have not supplied any alleged Spy Pen to the complainant and hence the complaint is wrong.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents in support of his case. The OP remained absent on the date of hearing.  Heard from the complainant as well as his A/R and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, the complainant stated that on going through the advertisement in TV and Print Media of the OP for selling of its product i.e. Spy Pen (Digital Video Recorder) along with accessories like Adaptor and USB Cable, he ordered for the same with the OP over phone on 26.12.14 for a sum of Rs.2140/- and the said product was delivered to the complainant by the OP through Regd. Posts by HPO, Koraput on 07.1.2015.  The OP stated in his counter that the OP is not advertising either in TV nor in Print Media for sale of its produce and the complainant never booked any Spy Pen with the OP and the OP has never supplied any Spy Pen to the complainant.

5.                     The complainant in support of his contentions has filed Delivery Slip of Postal Department which indicates that the article has been delivered to the complainant and the COD article costs Rs.2140/- and the Booking Office is Krishna Nagar dt.26.12.14.  The OP along with articles has also sent Product Catalogue containing more than 300 Products of One Sky Shop No.1 online Shopping.  The OP has also supplied its advertisement page from which it was ascertained that the OP is using more than 17 numbers of TV and Print Media Channels for its advertisement of products.  The relied documents are available on record.  From these facts it can be safely concluded that the OP is advertising its product for sale in different TV and Print Media and the complainant being influenced has booked Spy Pen with the OP on 26.12.14.  Further it is also revealed that it is clearly mentioned in the Postal Receipt that product has been booked on 26.12.14 and on delivery the complainant has paid Rs.2140/- to the OP through Postal authorities.  Therefore, contention of OP that the complainant has not booked the article on 26.12.14 and they have not supplied any article to the complainant is totally false.

6.                     The OP has challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Forum but from the advertisement page it was seen that the OP was using SARTHAK TV Channel (ODIA) and Odia Print Media PRAGATIBADI for their advertisement to sell their product and has also provided different telephone and SMS Numbers for use of prospective buyers all over India.  Use of TV and Print Media of Odisha region in our opinion brings the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum to try over this case.

7.                     The case of the complainant is that the Spy Pen and accessories supplied by the OP were not functioning and were damaged ones.  On telephonic contact the OP paid deaf-ear to the requests and on repeated requests of the complainant, the OP gave threats of dire consequences.  It was already held that the OP has supplied the articles to the complainant.  The complainant has also produced the defective Spy Pen and accessories before the Forum on the date of hearing for our perusal.  From the demo shown by the complainant and his A/R it was found that the Spy Pen was not working and its accessories were delicate ones.  As such we could safely come to the conclusion that the product supplied by the OP was a defective one which was not working at all and the complainant could not use it for a single day.  Further non supply of warranty card and money receipt by the OP amounts to unfair trade practice on its part.  By not replacing the defective articles on the request of the complainant with a new one also amounts to deficiency in service committed by OP.  Hence the complainant is entitled to get back cost of Spy Pen with accessories at Rs.2140/- with interest @ 12% from 07.1.2015 from the OP.  Further due to defective article the complainant could not use the same and has contacted the OP for its replacement but the OP did not do so for which the complainant must have suffered some mental agony and has come up with this case incurring some expenditure for which the complainant deserves compensation and costs.  Considering the sufferings of the complainant we feel, a sum of Rs.3000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP is directed to refund Rs.2140/- towards cost of Spy Pen and accessories with interest @ 12% p.a. from 07.1.2015 and to pay Rs.3000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. BIPIN CHANDRA MOHAPATRA]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. MANAS RANJAN BISOI]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Nibedita Rath]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.