Punjab

Sangrur

CC/10/2016

Harwinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Store1800. com - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vinay Jindal

26 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                            

                                                Complaint No.  10

                                                Instituted on:    01.10.2016

                                                Decided on:       26.09.2016

 

Harwinder Singh Batra son of Amar Singh, resident of # 6, SST Nagar, PNB Block, Rajpura Road, Patiala.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

1.             Store1800.com, S-3, Ground Floor, Spanish Garden, RG Baruah Road, Opposite Assam State Zoo, Ambika Giri Nagar, Guwahati, Assam, India-781 001 through its MD/Owner.

2.             ICICI Bank, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi through its Branch Manager.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Advocate.

For Opposite party No.1:  Exparte.

For Opposite party No.2:  Shri G.S.Shergill, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Harwinder Singh Batra, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant placed an online order for purchase of  one Sony Bravia Full HD 3 D smart Led television, model 50W900B with two free gifts i.e. one apple 1 iphone, model 6 16GB gold and one Sony home theatre, model BDV-E-290 of Rs.91,400/- under IPL offer with the OP number 1  on 11.4.2015 and accordingly the OP number 1 issued the proforma invoice vide number S58689978 for Rs.91,400/- with order number S746525. It is further averred that the OP number 1 again confirmed the order of the complainant by sending email.  Thereafter the complainant deposited the full amount of Rs.91,400/- on 13.4.2015 through bank NEFT in the account of the OP number 1 i.e. account number 0831-0500-0995, IFSC ICIC0000831 in the name of SPANK Brand (Store 1800) with the OP number 2 against the above said order dated 11.4.2015.

 

2.             The grievance of the complainant is that after three days, the product was not delivered by the OP number 1 and when approached, OP number 1 apprised that due to some quality issues, the product cannot be delivered and the Op number 1 apologized for the inconvenience through email dated 20.4.2015, as such, the complainant requested the OP number 1 for refund of the due amount of Rs.91,400/-.  Further case of the complainant is that the OP number 1 refunded/credited only an amount of Rs.7540/- in the saving bank account number 150801502136 of the complainant on 8.5.2015 in the ICICI Bank and further assured that the remaining amount of Rs.83,860/- would be deposited shortly, but the same was never deposited despite several requests of OP number 1.  As such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant the remaining amount of Rs.83,860/- along with interest and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             Notice sent to the OP number 1 on 18.1.2016 was received back with the remarks ‘refused’, as such, it was presumed that the OP number 1 has been served, but it did not appear, as such, OP number 1 was proceeded exparte on 2.3.2016.

 

4.             In reply filed by Op number 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false, frivolous and vague in nature, that the complainant is not the consumer and that this Forum has no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the account number 083105000095 is in the name of the SPANK BRAND. But, the other allegations levelled in the complaint against the answering OP are denied.

 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of order dated 18.11.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of letter, Ex.C-4 copy of proforma invoice, Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-10 copies of emails, Ex.C-11 copy of letter, Ex.C-12 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-13 to Ex.C-16 copies of letters and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit, Ex.OP2/2 copy of accounts statements and closed evidence.

 

6.             We have carefully perused the complaint and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP number 2. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that  the complainant placed an order with the OP number 1 for purchase of one Sony Bravia Full HD 3 D smart Led television, model 50W900B with two free gifts i.e. one apple 1 iphone, model 6 16GB gold and one Sony home theatre, model BDV-E-290 of Rs.91,400/- under IPL offer with the OP number 1  on 11.4.2015 as is evident from the copy of proforma invoice, which is on record as Ex.C-4.  It is also on record that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.91,400/- to the OP number 1 by depositing the same through NEFT in the account of the OP number 1, as is evident from the copy of certificate Ex.C-3 issued by Punjab and Sind Bank, Dhuri, Distt. Sangrur.  It is also clear from the copy of letter issued by OP number 1 dated 11.4.2015 from where it is clearly evident that the OP number 1 confirmed the placement of the order by the complainant.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that despite payment of Rs.91,400/- to the Op number 1, the OP  number 1 failed to supply the articles as ordered.  As such, the complainant requested the Op number 1 for refund of the so deposited amount of Rs.91,400/-, but the OP number 1 only refunded to the complainant an amount of Rs.7540/- in the saving bank account number 150801502136 of the complainant on 8.5.2015 in the ICICI Bank and further assured that the remaining amount of Rs.83,860/- would be refunded/deposited shortly to the complainant, but the same was never refunded to the complainant. There is no explanation from the side of OP number 1 that why they withheld such an amount of Rs.83,860/-.  It is worth mentioning here that the OP number 1 chose to remain exparte.  The above said allegations of the complainant in the complaint have been fully supported by the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 and further from the copies of emails and letters Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-16.   As such, we feel that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs by not either supplying the ordered items or by not refunding the full amount of Rs.91,400/- to the complainant.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.83,860/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from 11.4.2015 till realisation. We further direct OP number 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- on account of compensation and further Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 26, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member