THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR
Consumer Complaint No. 538 of 2014
Date of Institution : 14.10.2014
Date of Decision : 01.07.2015
Rupinder Kaur D/o Gurcharan Singh R/o H.No. 24/25 D, Golden Avenue, Amritsar
...Complainant
Vs.
TeleBrands (India) Pvt.Ltd., Regd.Office Plot No. A-168, Road No. 25, M.I.D.C. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400604
....Opp.parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present : For the complainant : In person
For the opposite party : Ex-parte
Quorum : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, President ,Ms. Kulwant Bajwa,Member &
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by :-
Bhupinder Singh, President
1 Present complaint has been filed by Rupinder Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she had placed order through online
-2-
purchase of one Nicer Dicer, Go Duster and Nicer Dicer with the opposite party. According to the complainant, opposite party sent these three items to the complainant through VPP and the complainant paid Rs. 3458/- and received the aforesaid three articles . Complainant has alleged that opposite party has given advertisement that the aforesaid three articles are for Rs. 1999/- but the opposite party has charged Rs. 3458/- from the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that when she opened the parcel, she found that net of Nicer Dicer and electric brush was defective. The complainant submitted that she made telephone call to the opposite party so many times . Ultimately she received reply from the opposite party that they have delivered the goods , as such they cannot help the complainant in any way. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to refund Rs. 3458/- alongwith interest. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. Initially opposite party did not appear despite service, as such it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 12.12.2014 but later on Sh. Rohit Sharma,Adv appeared on 29.4.2015 and case was adjourned for filing written version but again it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 29.6.2015.
3 In ex-parte evidence complainant tendered her affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of invoice Ex.C-2.
4. We have carefully gone through the averment of the complainant,arguments
-3-
advanced by the complainant and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by the complainant with the valuable assistance of the complainant.
5. From the record i.e. averment of the complainant and the evidence produced on record by the complainant, it stands fully proved on record that complainant had placed order through online purchase of one Nicer Dicer, Go Duster and Nicer with the opposite party. Resultantly the opposite party sent these three items to the complainant through VPP and the complainant paid Rs. 3458/- and received the aforesaid three articles vide invoice Ex.C-2. The complainant alleges that opposite party has given advertisement that the price ofaforesaid three articles is Rs. 1999/- but the opposite party has charged Rs. 3458/- from the complainant. The complainant has further alleged that when she opened the parcel, she found that one net (jali) of Nicer Dicer and electronic brush was defective. The complainant submitted that she made telephone call to the opposite party so many times . Ultimately she received reply from the opposite party that they have delivered the goods, as such they cannot help the complainant in any way.
6. In order to prove his version the complainant has placed on record only the invoice Ex.C-2 which clearly states that the value of these three articles i.e. one Nicer Dicer, Go Duster and another Nicer Dicer amounts to Rs. 3458/-. No other evidence has been produced on record by the complainant except her own affidavit Ex.C-1. Apart from this complainant could not produce any other evidence to prove
-4-
that the value of aforesaid three articles was Rs. 1999/- as alleged by the complainant. The complainant could not produce on record any pamphlet or any advertisement , brochure, etc of the opposite party to prove that the price of these articles was Rs. 1999/- as alleged by the complainant instead of Rs. 3458/- as mentioned in the invoice Ex.C-2.
7. Further, the complainant has alleged that when she opened the parcel, she found that the net of Nicer Dicer was broken and electric brush was defective. The complainant neither produced these articles in the Forum nor the photographs of the allegedly broken articles. If the complainant on opening the parcel found that the net of Nicer Dicer was broken and electric brush was defective, why she did not return these articles back to the opposite party immediately or within 48 hours from the receipt of articles Apart from this the complainant never lodged any complaint with the opposite party to the effect that on opening the parcel she found the net of Nicer Dicer broken and electric brush defective nor the complainant could produce any complaint in the form of representation, letter, e-mail, etc sent by the complainant to the opposite party complaining about the aforesaid defects in the articles received by the complainant through VPP nor the complainant could produce report of any mechanic to the effect that net of the Nicer Dicer was broken and that electric brush was defective.
8. Resultantly we hold that complainant has failed to prove on record the
-5-
averment mentioned by her in the complaint.
9. Consequently we hold that complaint is without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
1.07.2015 ( Bhupinder Singh )
President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
/R/ Member Member
