DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.60/2014

Sh.  Jitender Singh

S/o Sh. Chain Singh,

At C & S Electronic Ltd.,

Phase-III, Okhla,

New Delhi                                                                      ….Complainant

Versus

M/s Spice Online Retail Pvt. Ltd.

through its Directors

M/s Spice Global Knowledge Park,

60-D, Street No.C-5,

Sainik Farms, New Delhi                                          ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      : 12.02.14                 Date of Order                : 25.04.18

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

ORDER

Complainant’s case, in nutshell, is that the complainant  had  purchased a mobile phone make Nokia Lumia 520 (Black) from the OP through website Sahaloc.Com on 06.11.13 for Rs.10,204/- vide order No.563236. On 08.11.13 on receiving of the parcel the complainant came to know that the parcel was tampered as it did not have any mobile phone but contained a stone only. He narrated the entire story to the OP through email and the OP assured that the matter will be resolved within 48 hours but to no effect. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 30.11.13 through his Advocate to the OP but despite the receipt of the legal notice the OP has not done anything. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the complainant  has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.10,204/- being the amount paid by him and atleast Rs. 20,000/-  towards compensation/damage.

          OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 13.11.14 passed by our predecessors.

          Complainant has filed his exparte affidavit in evidence and also written arguments. He has relied on the documents Ex. CW-1/1 to Ex. CW-1/9.

We have heard the oral argument on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.

Ex. CW-1/4 is the copy of bill for an amount of Rs. 10204/-.  Vide email dated 29.11.13 the complainant informed one Vaibhav Tomar on his gmail email address that the parcel infact contained a stone and not the mobile phone. Ex. CW-1/8 is the copy of  the email dated 29.11.13 received from Saholic Customer  Support Team by the complainant whereby the complainant had been informed that the said team had escalated the matter to the concerned department and they are working on it currently and assured the complainant  that he will get a resolution within 48 hours.  All these documents pertain to the booking and alleged non-delivery of the mobile phone. However, the complainant has not filed  any document to show that  he had made any correspondence with the OP or that the OP had refused to look into his compliant or take any action into the matter. Therefore, the OP did not come in the picture anywhere and the matter revolved around between the complainant and Sahaloc. Therefore, in our considered opinion, no specific order can be passed against the OP since it was never brought to the notice of the OP that the mobile phone make Nokia Lumia was manufactured by the OP or OP had any concern with the transaction in question or that instead of supplying the mobile set the Saholic had infact sent a stone to him. Therefore, no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the OP.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 25.04.2018