Haryana

Kaithal

428/20

Manoj Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tech.Connect Retail.Pvt - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Jai Parkash

16 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.428/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 11.12.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:16.05.2023.

Manoj Kumar aged 29 years S/o Sh. Randhir Singh, resident of Ramana Ramani, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Tech. Connect Retail Pvt. 703-704, 7^th Floor, Magnum Tower 1 Archview driver Sector-58, Golf Course Extension Road, Gurgram, Haryana.
2. Tech. Connect Retail Pvt. Ltd. Rect. Nos.6,07,08 and 13, Village Khadipur, Tehsil Badli. 

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Jai Parkash, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Vikram Tiwari, Advocate for the respondents.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Manoj Kumar-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had placed an order for purchase of watch to the OPs through Flipkart and the OPs have issued a receipt/bill of a watch Make: Diesel DZ1618 Master CH1 watch X1462M7 for the sum of Rs.6405/- vide invoice No.FAC7DXD210513469 dt. 25.11.2020.  The OPs have dispatched the Fastrack Watch instead of ordered watch.  The said Fastrack Watch is inferior watch and is of less value than the ordered watch.  The complainant made complaint to the OPs with regard of sending the another model of watch, but the Ops send message that they are sorry, they are unable to proceed his refund request.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections that the answering OPs are registered sellers on the website “Flipkart.com” and sells products of other manufacturers, traders etc.; that the answering OPs are not engaged in the sale of any goods manufactured or produced by its own; that the product was duly delivered by the answering Ops to the complainant in a sealed box (as it was received from the manufacturer/distributer) within the time specified in the order; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 & Annexure-C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

4.             On the other hand, the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith document Annexure-R1 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

6.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant had placed an order for purchase of watch to the OPs through Flipkart and the OPs have issued a receipt/bill of a watch Make: Diesel DZ1618 Master CH1 watch X1462M7 for the sum of Rs.6405/- vide invoice No.FAC7DXD210513469 dt. 25.11.2020.  It is further argued that the OPs have dispatched the Fastrack Watch instead of ordered watch.  It is further argued that the said Fastrack Watch is inferior watch and is of less value than the ordered watch.  The complainant made complaint to the OPs with regard of sending the another model of watch, but the Ops send message that they are sorry, they are unable to proceed his refund request.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

7.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Ops has argued that the OPs are registered sellers on the website “Flipkart.com” and sells products of other manufacturers, traders etc.  It is further argued that the  OPs are not engaged in the sale of any goods manufactured or produced by its own.  It is further argued that the product was duly delivered by the answering Ops to the complainant in a sealed box (as it was received from the manufacturer/distributer) within the time specified in the order.

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  It is clear from the pleadings that the complainant had placed an order for purchase of watch to the OPs through Flipkart and the OPs have issued a receipt/bill of a watch Make: Diesel DZ1618 Master CH1 watch X1462M7 for the sum of Rs.6405/- vide invoice No.FAC7DXD210513469 dt. 25.11.2020 as per Annexure-C1.  The grievance of the complainant is that the Ops have dispatched the Fastrack Watch instead of ordered watch to the complainant.  The complainant made complaint to the OPs in this regard but the OPs send reply that they are sorry, they are unable to process his refund request and refund request was rejected as is clear from the copy of order details as per Annexure-C2.  So, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops.

9.             Thus, in view of aforesaid discussion, we direct the Ops to refund the amount of Rs.6405/- to the complainant within 45 days from today.  The complainant is also directed to deposit the Fastrack Watch with the OPs within 30 days.  However, it is made clear that if the OPs are failed to make the payment of awarded amount of Rs.6405/- to the complainant within stipulated period, then they shall be liable to pay interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly.  There is no order as to costs.   

10.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents-OPs shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:16.05.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.