DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.831 of 2013
Ambrish Srivastava, Advocate,
S/o Late Sri T.N. Srivastava,
R/o H.No. C-266, Nirala Nagar,
P.S.- Hasanganj, Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
- M/s Tele Brands (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer,
Registered Office- Plot No.A-168, Road No.25,
M.I.D.C. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400604.
- Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer,
M/s Tele Brands (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office- Plot No.A-168, Road No.25,
M.I.D.C. Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane-400604.
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of cost of products of Rs.5,493.00 and postal charges of Rs.275.00 with 12% interest, compensation of Rs.50,000.00 and cost of litigation of Rs.22,000.00.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that on seeing the advertisement of the OPs, he placed an order on 23.07.2013 for purchasing a fitness pump at the OPs No.9223100700 and on their inducement also placed order for purchasing another product Nicer Dicer. On 29.07.2013 the Complainant received sealed packet containing the aforesaid products on paying Rs.5,493.00 towards the price of the products and Rs.275.00 the postal charges. When the Complainant
-2-
opened the packet then he found the products Fitness Pushup Exerciser and Nicer Dicer to be defective ones as the Fitness Pushup Exerciser’s chest pad, handle cover and stand pad were torn and locking screw was loose and could not be fitted properly and the CD was also missing. The sharpness of the Nicer Dicer was not up to the mark and its bowl was also having crack. He immediately at about 10.15 hrs called upon the OPs at the aforesaid number and lodged his protest. The Complainant was asked to send the original invoice with his complaint and on 30.07.2009 at about 12.27 hrs. he sent his complaint with the original invoice. In the night of 30.07.2009 when the Complainant was again watching TV advertisement he found that the fitness pump shown in that was different from the one delivered to him, hence the Complainant again contacted the OPs regarding the cheating whereupon he was told that the difference in name had no bearing on the product. When again the Complainant contacted the OPs then he was told to send the products to the Company and the expenses to be incurred in sending the products were to be borne by the Complainant, thus the Complainant is cheated by the Company, hence this complaint.
The OPs have filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as the jurisdiction rests in District Thane of Maharashtra only. Besides the Complainant insisted for additional product by not returning the defective product. The Complainant did not bother to send the product back to the OPs for the replacement. He does not want to resolve the dispute. The Complainant has made false and baseless allegations without any justification, hence the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Besides the products have exhausted the warranty period, hence no relief can be given to the Complainant, hence this complaint deserves to be dismissed with costs.
-3-
The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 3 annexures. The OPs has filed the affidavit of Sri Hitesh Israni, Managing Director, Telebrands India Pvt. Ltd.
Heard Counsel for the Complainant but none appeared from the side of the OPs to argue the case. Perused the entire record.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint or not? It is also to be seen as to whether the OPs have committed unfair trade practice in selling the defective products to the Complainant and not replacing them when the Complainant asked them to do so, if so, its consequences.
We first take up the point as to whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint or not? In this regard, it is the stand of the OPs that this case is not maintainable in this Forum as the jurisdiction rests in Thane District in Maharashtra because the office of the OPs is at Thane only and there is an agreement to the effect that in case of any dispute the Thane District shall have the jurisdiction but there is no substance in this stand of the OPs as not only the order for purchasing the products was placed at Lucknow but the products were also supplied at the residence of the Complainant which is in Lucknow, therefore the cause of action arose at Lucknow also, therefore this Forum at Lucknow has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint and accordingly it is decided that the Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
Now, we come to the main point as to whether the OPs have committed unfair trade practice in selling the defective products to the Complainant and not replacing them. In this regard, the contention of the Complainant is that the goods supplied to him were defective and that he contacted the OPs for replacing the goods but they did not do anything. In this regard, it is very important to note the stand of the OPs that the
-4-
Complainant did not send the defective products to them, hence the products could not be replaced. The OPs have taken the stand in their WS that the Complainant did not bother to send the defective products back to OPs for replacement meaning thereby that without receiving the defective products the OPs were not in a position to replace the goods so indirectly they admit that if the goods were defective then they were ready to replace them. There is no credible evidence to counter the stand of the Complainant that the products were defective ones. The Complainant has filed his affidavit in support of his contention that the goods were defective ones and that the OPs did not replace them. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record and the contention of the OPs it is concluded that the OPs supplied defective goods to the Complainant. The only grouse of the OPs is that the Complainant did not send the defective goods to them for replacement but in this regard the Complainant has stated that when he was asked to send the original invoice then he sent that but no action was taken and that the OPs asked for sending the goods by bearing the cost of carrying the products to the OPs. All this goes to show that the OPs were not serious about the replacement of the goods and therefore they have certainly committed unfair trade practice in selling out the defective products and not replacing them, therefore the Complainant is entitled to get the goods replaced by the OPs. As he also appears to have been harassed in this regard, hence he is entitled to get compensation and also cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to replace the goods in place of the old ones to be taken from the Complainant at the time of delivery of the new products. In case they are not able to do so then the OPs will pay Rs.5,768.00 (Rupees Five Thousand Seven
-5-
Hundred Sixty Eight Only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the Complainant.
The OPs are also directed to pay Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.3,000.00 (Rupees Three Thousand Only) as cost of the litigation.
The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
(Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member President
Dated: 20 January, 2016
