Delhi

South Delhi

CC/194/2021

MS TANUSHREE - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA UNISTORE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

 

Case No. 194/21

Ms. Tanushree

D/o Sh. Narender Kumar

R/o C-2/13, Tilak Lane,

Near India Gate (PS Tilak Marg),

New Delhi-110001

 

….Complainant

Versus

Tata Unistore Limited

1^st Floor, Empire Plaza 2,

Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg,

Chandan Nagar, Vikhroli West,

Mumbai, Maharashtra-400083 (India)

 

 

       ….Opposite Party

    

 Date of Institution    : 07.07.2021      

 Date of Order            : 30.01.2023      

 

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

 

ORDER

 

 

Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi

 

1. Complainant has requested to pass an award the directing to M/s Tata UniStore Limited (hereinafter referred to as OP) to refund Rs. 1999/- alongwith interest @ 18 from the date of purchase till its realization, (ii) to pay a sum of Rs. one lac towards compensation for mental agony, harassment, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service; (iii) to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 11,000/- as litigation charges etc.

 

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

 

The complainant placed an order on 22.05.2021 for Rs. 1999/- with OP-Tata Cliq for the beauty product. OP sold the product despite the fact that expiry date was clearly mentioned on the said product. As such, the product cannot be used after its expiry as per statutory provision in this regard. It also goes to establish that product on its expiry was being sold only and only to gain undue profit with mala-fide intention. Had the complainant not exercised its diligence and used the expiry product, the same would have caused irreparable damage to the body and health of the complainant.

 

3. When the matter of expiry was taken up with OP. OP demanded proof of expiry of said product. The complainant made available the same on Whats App of the given number (copy of same is enclosed as Annexure-D). Thereafter the OP got the product picked from the residence of complainant on 02.06.2021. The complainant felt that such expiry product should have been destroyed as per provision laid down by the statute. The complainant apprehended that the said product might have not been sold to some other customers. The seeking of refund from the OP became abortive herculean task despite many telephone calls & e-mails. The copies such e-mails are attached as Annexure-E to G. After these efforts, the OP informed the complainant via e-mail that a sum of Rs. 1999/- has been refunded via ‘Cliq Cash’ on 03.06.2021. The said application was checked and nothing was found credited. The complainant contended that said App is not legal tender. The manner in which, the OP had conducted himself for refund amounts to duping of the customer.

 

4.      It is noted that the case/complaint was transferred with the approval of President, State Commission vide order dated 25.10.2021 in this Commission. Hence the proceedings here. Counsel for the complainant made statement before this Commission that the OP had been duly served notice and he filed the proof of service alongwith affidavit to this effect. This Commission proceeded exparte against OP and made observation that “OP is well aware of the matter and had chosen not to appear in the Commission”. It is also noticed that the OP has got filed its reply to the complaint on 16.09.22 in the registry but the Counsel or any representative had not bothered to appear in the Commission despite the fact that the OP or its Counsel were aware of the next date of hearing (NDOH). The NDOH was marked on the top of the reply so filed here. Since the OP had been proceeded exparte on 12.07.22, the reply cannot be considered. Therefore, the question of keeping it on record does not arise. The complainant has filed its exparte evidence in affidavit and exparte written submission. The argument were heard and concluded on 30.11.22.

 

5.      This Commission has gone through the entire gamut of issues and due consideration was given to the arguments as well. The primary grievance of the complainant hinges around this fact that the product of expiry date was dispatched to the complainant when it was brought to the notice of OP or its representative. The OP had shown its audacity to the extent that proof of expiry was demanded. Thereafter the expiry product was got picked up from the residence of OP. The complainant had apprehension that the same might have been sold to some other customer. Otherwise, it should have destroyed after adopting due procedure as laid down in the statute. And complainant should have been intimated of the destruction of expiry of product. It was noticed that the complainant was duped in a manner that the refund of Rs. 1999/- had been said to be made available on the particular App. The refund amount was not found on the suggestive App, as such, the complainant was befooled again.

 

6.      After considering the facts and circumstances in the case and other evidences in the matter, this Commission is of the considered opinion that OP had not conducted itself in the manner which is expected from the seller. There are certain duties and responsibilities of the seller towards the customer more particularly in such cases where the product in question is having direct impact on the human body. As per provision of Consumer Protection Act 2019, the OP should have removed he expiry goods from the sale counter. Had the customer not exercised its due diligence, there could have been irreparable loss to the body of the customer. In such matter, the conduct of OP cannot be let off. Hence, this Commission is of the strong opinion that OP is short of obligation which are cast upon him under Statute in sensitive matter of public health. OP is vividly deficient in service and was found adopting unfair trade practice. Therefore, OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 1999/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of purchase. Further, being public health matter, the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is allowed and Rs. 5000/- as litigation charges within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the interest shall be levied @ 9% p.a. till its realization.          

 

          File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.