BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 13^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVKUMAR, MEMBER

Complainant filed this complaint U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act of 2019, claiming refund of Rs.1,200/-, Rs.13,000 as a compensation and Rs.668/- towards cost of litigation, in total complainant is claiming Rs.14,868/- from OP and other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:-

Complainant visited the store of OP to buy bathroom accessories such as hand shower, toilet safety frame and grab rails on 11.05.2022. Complainant asked OP to show hand showers for about Rs.1,000/- and below. OP showed 4 pieces of hand showers having brand of ZEW, ESSESS within the range of Rs.1,000 and Rs.1,500/-. After the observation complainant asked OP that the products which he shown are looks like china made. OP responded that the parts could have sourced from china and they are assembled locally. After her enquiry OP did not show more products within the range of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1,500/- to the complainant. More so complainant required products which have warranty period within her range. But OP stated that the products within the price in the range of RS.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- would not have any warranty and in case you are particular about warranty you have to go for Jaquar brand which is very expensive brand and also it has hand shower with hose and holder. It would cost minimum Rs.5,000/-. Complainant stated that she is regular customer and believed that OP would be with her and act in good favor. Complainant further stated that OP has willfully suppressed the information, mislead into believing that only expensive brands like Jaquar offers warranty on hand showers. But such expensive hand showers were beyond her range. After all the enquiry, finally she purchased ZEW hand showers by paying Rs.1,200/- through online payment.

3. Complainant alleged in her complaint that the price of ZEW hand showers written by hand, not printed on the box. Later complainant enquired about the toilet safety frames which were not available in the shop. OP provided a catalogue book of bathroom accessories to show few models of Cera grab railes. But complainant not purchased grab railes. For the purchase of ZEW hand shower complainant has paid Rs.1,200/- through UPI transaction ID No.213113774020. OP did not issue receipts as other hard-ware shops in Yelhanka.

4. When the hand shower shown to her father, he expresses that the product is very expensive. Complainant searched the hand shower in online, many similar hand showers were available for her price range like international brand Kohler was offered warrant for Rs.1,779/- with hose and holder which is closed to her budget. But the online retailer as offered it in limited time offer. Hence could not purchase it as she already purchased offline from OP. Complainant got good Indian company Cera hand shower with hose and holder for Rs.929/- on online with 7 years of warranty. When the complainant asked OP to provide the same if he has Cera dealership. Complainant stated that OP has willfully concealed the fact that he had dealership in Indian brand of hand showers such as Cera that offers warranty and available around Rs.1,000/- which is within her price range. Complainant later forwarded the image of Cera F7030315AB priced at Rs.1,590/-. Despite being able to arrange for Cera hand showers, OP was trying to control the model she would buy because Cera F7030315AB was pricier than Cera F7030301 by Rs.661/-. Complainant repeatedly sent whatsapp chat to OP to get suitable replacement and also requested to book her required hand shower through online by OP on behalf of her, and requested to replace the same later, OP not agreed for the same and he offered her to take credit voucher instead of cash back, only on the reason that she has paid it through online. The above said allegations has brought to the notice of OP through whatsapp chats by complainant, OP not denied her allegations. Hence she claims that OP caused deficiency of services by not showing any Indian brands in her price range with warranty and she also alleged that OP did not agreed for suitable replacement for reason to push more expensive product to the customers. She also alleged that OP repeatedly refused to refund, citing the payment has made through digital mode. Hence refund cannot be made through cash and offered the credit voucher for future purchase. Complainant hereby alleged OP has indulging in unfair trade practice on silly reasons, he arrogantly and aggressively behaved with customers. Therefore, complainant seeking for refund of Rs.1,200/- paid towards hand shower, litigation cost and compensation of Rs.13,000/- from this commission.

5. Notice sent to OP through RPAD, which was duly served on OP. On the date of appearance OP represented in person and offered for settlement by paying Rs.1,200/- to the complainant. OP filed a Memo and also submitted that he is ready to repay Rs.1,200/- to the complainant which she paid towards hand shower, but complainant did not accept the offer and not ready to settle the matter at this stage. Hence the case is proceeded to dispose it on merits. OP filed version, denied the allegations made in the complainant. OP admitted that the complainant has purchased hand shower of ZEW brand for Rs.1,200/- made payment by way of Google pay and for that issued bill bearing No.489 dated 11.05.2022. He stated in his version that complainant called OP on the same evening stating that she searched in the google and got good brands like Kohler brand offering hand shower for Rs.1,779/- and Cera brand No.F7030301 for Rs.929/-. OP replied that the Cera brand and model is not available with him. After some time OP himself sent a Cera brand No.7030315AB in whatsapp to the complainant. Complainant had enquired details about the said product but she asked to book online Cera F7030301 on her behalf, since the said model is not available offline with OP. After all such conversation OP has told her that he is ready to take the item back, if she wanted to buy it online but he is not able to refund by way of cash since the complainant has made the payment through Google pay and the said amount has remitted to the current account of OP. Hence he asked her to purchase the other items from OP’s shop in future through credit voucher. OP stated that after the above conversation complainant was quite, all of a sudden she sent notice through this commission on 23.11.2022 and he denied that the act of OP caused mental agony to the complainant as she stated in the complaint and also he contends that no deficiency of service on his part. Complainant has purchased ZEW brand by her own will and wish, not compelled her to purchase the hand shower from him and also denied that he has not issued the bill for item.

6. Complainant filed her affidavit evidence by way of oral evidence in support of oral evidence complainant has filed 7 documents which are marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. In her affidavit evidence, complainant reiterated as stated in the complaint. OP filed affidavit evidence along with 11 documents which are marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.11. Both the parties filed certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act and written arguments.

7. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP?

ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed?

iii) What order?

8.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Negative

Point No.2:- Negative

Point No.3:- As per the final order

REASONS

9. Point No.1:- Complainant has visited shop of OP on 11.05.2022 to purchase hand shower, bathroom accessories like hand shower, toilet safety frame and grab rails, which is not disputed. Here the questions arise with regard to the transaction between complainant and OP as follows:-

i) Whether Section 9 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, is protected?

ii) Whether complainant proved the attitude of OP caused mental agony to her?

10. i) It pertinent to note that complainant purchase hand shower after due enquiries in relation to product, her allegations against OP are he is concealed that he is dealer for Cera products and not disclosed the products which she requires in Cera. Immediately after the visit of the complainant, OP displayed 4 pieces of different brand hand showers to complainant. Complainant enquired with regard to the warranty for the products and within her price range i.e, around Rs.1,000/- for hand shower. As per her requirement, those 4 brands shown to her were not carries warranty. OP explained about the brands which has warranty are of expensive range like Jaquar. After due enquiries complainant decided to purchase ZEW brand hand shower and also she paid Rs.1,200/- to the said hand shower through Google pay, which is at Ex.P.3. OP issued tax invoice on 11.05.2022 bearing No.489, which is at Ex.R.1. After going back to home on the same day she called OP and sent the information with regard to the hand showers of Cera brand which was searched in online and pressurize him to replace the model Cera as per her requirement. Complainant also told OP to replace the same with other Cera brand available in online, by booking on her behalf, which is at Ex.R.3, when the OP responded that he can only offer credit voucher instead of refund of money by way of cash which is difficult for him, since the payment has been remitted to his current account which cannot be refunded.

11. In our considered view the OP’s submission seems to be right in his way and also as per the principles of business transactions. Once it is sold, seller can rectify the defects if occurred in the product but not returning and refunding without any genuine fault in the product. Here we observed that complainant has no dispute with hand shower or any fault found in product she purchased, her allegations and the dispute only with regard to the price which she purchased and also with the model she purchased. It is not fair, if she found in online, she can book the online product prior to the purchase or otherwise she has to accept the product she already paid and purchased. Hence we observed that complainant has not exercised the ‘rights of consumers’. If she is not satisfied with product and its price, no one compel her to buy at OP’s shop. Hence answer to (i) is complainant shifting her responsibility on OP, since she thought to purchase other model hand shower after she purchased at OP’s shop. Hence this complaint.

12. OP himself sent her models and brand with Cera on her enquiry but later insisted OP to book the product online on her behalf, is not fair. OP rightly stated that her required product available online only. Her allegation that OP is not ready to refund in cash. The dispute raised only on this stage when OP has refused to refund and refused to book online as per her convenience and wish. So the complainant came with this complaint without any genuine reason or defect in product sold by OP, is unfair and unjust. If at all complainant wanted to buy particular model or brand she could access the online search prior to the purchase or could book online on her own.  Only for the replacement purpose compelling OP to book online for the replacement of purchased product is not right on her part. By pursuing Section 9(ii) right to be informed about the quality and quantity, OP has fulfilled the same. OP revealed the said ZEW hand shower has no warranty. He has not misrepresented about the quality and its standard during the transaction. Hence, though it is informed to the complainant, complainant has purchased after convinced with product, on her own will and wish and without any defect in the product, she alleged against OP by filing complaint against him, is not fair. In case if she is not satisfied with the product, she could go to other shops for particular brand and model, get her product as per her requirement. Hence in our considered view, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and complainant has not utilized her rights as a ‘consumer’ as per the law.

13. ii) As alleged by complainant, OP has not shown interest to show the products and deliberately concealed the information on branded hand showers, he had and could arrange for within the price range. With regard supra complainant has failed to prove the same. Complainant also failed to prove the OP has dealership of Cera. If he has Cera dealership, in our view his interest is always to sell them, not other brands. When the complainant argued with the OP for the replacement with online product by booking on her behalf or refund the amount she paid is not fair on her part. Also it was not the reason for her to get mental stress. Here, after selling the product, demanding to replace the product with the product which are not available in his shop and refunding the amount she paid which he could not repay since it is a digital payment, it might have caused stress to the OP. More so, OP offered Rs.1,200/- at the first da;y of his appearance, even though it is difficult. Complainant not accepted the same. With above discussion, we answer (ii) in negative and for the foregoing reasons we answer Point No.1 in negative.

14. Point No.2:- The crux of the matter in present case in hand is, complainant approached this commission with small reason, it was better to accept the offer made by OP on the day of appearance that is on 09.12.2022, when OP was refunding Rs.1,200/- which the complainant has paid towards hand shower, but complainant has not accepted the offer. It shows the intention of complainant. Hence in our view, the case is frivolous one. Complainant has made this commission to spend time on such reasons is strongly condemnable. On the above reasons we answer Point No.2 in negative.

15. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

i) Complainant filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, is hereby dismissed. No cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 13^th day of JUNE, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;