Kerala

Kasaragod

CC/2/2020

Fathimath Safeena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Style Loftt Golden Willows - Opp.Party(s)

Shajid Kammadam

07 Dec 2021

ORDER

D.O.F:04/01/2020

                                                                                                  D.O.O:07/12/2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.02/2020

Dated this, the 07^th   day of December 2021

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

 

Fathimath Safeena, aged 30 years

D/o Abdul Gafoor

R/at Benoor House, Perumbala P.O                                : Complainant

Kalanad Via, Kasaragod – 671314

(Adv: Shajid Kammadam)

 

                                                And

 

1. Style loft, Golden willows

Swapna Nagari

Opposite Trade Singh Garden                                          : Opposite Parties

Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400080

Rep: by its authorized person

 

2. Face book

One BKC, Bandra (E) Mumbai, India 400051

Represented by its authorized person

 

ORDER

SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER

            This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant Smt. Fathimath shafeena had an account in Instagram.  The Instagram facilitated online shopping, which permits the account holder to buy products directly on photo sharing platform .  Complainant became interested in purchasing some of the products of Opposite Party No: 1. she placed order for two Lehengas, one of the Lehangas is cream coloured with peach worth Rs. 1799/- only and other is golden traditional work Lehenga worth Rs. 1800/- .  The total value of the order is 3599/-.  The consignment was served on 18/11/2019.  When opened the consignment it contained cream colour Lehenga only other item from the parcel is missing.  The parcel was arrived incomplete at destination immediately complaint registered with Opposite Party No:1 but is not solved.  Neither the missing item was delivered nor refunded the product amount.  Thus complaint is filed before consumer commission.  After receiving the notice from Honourable commission they have directed complainant to withdraw the complaint as they would send the missing item.  Opposite Party No: 1 are liable to compensate the loss for the unfair trade practice undergone by the complainant.  Complainant alleges that Opposite Party No:1 indulged in the unethical practice of exploiting customers through illegal means.  The act of Opposite Party No:1 amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service the act of Opposite Party caused mental agony physical strain and emotional insult to the complainant. Hence this complaint for necessary Redressal.

            Opposite Party No: 1 filed versions stating that complaint is false frivouls misconceived and is to be dismissed with cost.  As per the version of Opposite Party No:1 the complaint has filed in order to extort money.  Opposite Party No: 1 denied each and every averment and allegation made in the complaint.  As per Opposite Party No:1 this complaint filed with a malafied intention to harass Opposite Party No:1.  Complainant has failed to inform Opposite Party No:1 about her grievance through any means to seek Redressal from Opposite Party No:1 .  Complainant suffers from supressioveri and suggesiofalsi.  Opposite Party No: 1 further states that complainant is misusing the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  Opposite Party No: 1 admits that complainant ordered two Lahengas, both items were packed in a packet which was sealed and sent to the complainant by Fedex Courier. No information was given to Opposite Parties by complainant that the packet was tampered with and it contained only one Lehenga. Opposite Parties further states that complainant had received the items ordered by her and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No:1.  Complainant is praying for compensation in terms of money is totaly unjustified.  Hence the complaint may be discussed with cost.

            Opposite Party No: 2 filed version.  According to the version of Opposite Party  No:2 complainant was identified Opposite Party No:2 as Facebook.  However no entity known as Facebook exist.  The only face book related entity with an Indian addressee “Facebook India online services private limited”.  Opposite Party No:2 further states that complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Facebook India has not received any consideration from complainant.  Opposite Party No: 2 is collecting commission for every sale being held in their platform.  Facebook India does not operat or control the Instagram service available at www.instagram.com.  Facebook India is not a necessary party to an action arising out of content allegedly variable on Facebook services.  The grievance of the complainant with regard to Instgram service should be sufficiently addressed to the appropriate entity.

            Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext A1 marked, no evidence is adduced by Opposite Parties. Even though Opposite Party No:1 and 2 filed lengthy versions.  Both side heard.

            The main questions raised for consideration are

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No: 1 in missing one dress from the parcel
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief?
3. If so what is the relief?

ISSUE No:1

      Complainant placed order for two Lehengas, which were exhibited in facebook to wear her housewarming ceremony.  The total price of two Lehengas is Rs. 3599/- .  when the parcel was served, to her utter surprise , the most expected item is missing.  She registered complaint before Opposite Party No: 1. Complainant produced Ext A1 series printed copies of the screen shots the conversation took place between complainant and Opposite Party No: 1. But Opposite Party was silent to her queries.  After filing complaint before this commission Opposite Party No:1 send the missing item to the complainant.  Complainant alleges the act of Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, In the absence of rebuttal evidence certainly there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.

ISSUE No: 2

    Complainant selected two dress materials to wear on her house warming celebration.  Unfortunately the expected item from the packet was lost and it affected her mentally physically and emotionally.  ‘Missing item’ spoiled her happiness. Moreover she lost her money she had undergone severe stress.  Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate her loss and agony.  Even though the dress material is delivered after filing of this complaint her pain remains as she could not wore it on the housewarming function.  Hence complainant is entitled for compensation.

 

ISSUE No: 3

     While discussing about the quantum of compensation, we are of the opinion that both Opposite Parties are liable to compensate the loss of complainant jointly and severally. Considering the facts and circumstances of this complaint an amount of Rs. 5000/- shall be a reasonable compensation. 

            Therefore complaint is partly allowed directing Opposite Parties to give             Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant as compensation and cost.

Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this Judgement. 

      Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                            Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Series printed copies of the screen shots.

      Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

 

Forwarded by Order

 

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/