BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Praveen Kharbanda  s/o Mr.B.L. Kanval Kharbanda, r/o #3571, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh

2^nd Address:

S.C.O. No.480, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh

…..Complainant

                           V E R S U S

TeleBrands India Private Limited, through its Principal Officer, having its Registered Office at 403-A, 2^nd Floor, Panna House, Devi Dayal Compound, L.B.S. Marg, Bhandup(West), Mumbai-400078

                                  ……Opposite Party

CORAM:  SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

              SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA  MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Divanshu Jain, Adv. for complainant.

   OP ex-parte

PER DR. (MRS.) MADHU BEHL, MEMBER

       Succinctly put, the complainant, purchased Airlounge priced Rs.6294/-(total) through an order placed on website of TeleBrands India Private Limited (OP) which was received by the complainant on 20.04.09 through shipment vide invoice no V000004959 dated 15.04.09. That only after two days the complainant noticed that the air started leaking slowly form the lower portion of the Airlounge and got deflated gradually. Subsequently, when the complainant noticed the said defect, the complainant lodged a telephonic complaint with the customer care department of OP and after the advice of the customer care department of OP, the complainant sent the defective Airlounge back to the Registered Office of the OP on 25.04.09, through courier. Thereafter, the complainant received a replacement of defective Airlounge on 11.05.09 and again noticed that the replaced Airlounge was also defective with same defect as the earlier one.  That, on the very first day itself there was a leakage in the lower portion of the replaced Airlounge and was of no use to the complainant. The complainant again telephonically complained about the said defect to the customer care department of OP on 13.05.09. The customer care department of OP again advised the complainant to send it back for another replacement and the Airlounge was again sent back by the complainant to the Goods Return Department on 18.05.09 through Indian Posts. Subsequently, on receiving the second replacement of Airlounge the complaint again found the Airlounge defective, having 2 puncture patches and further found the name and address of some other person on the box (as sender to the OP), which reflected that it was the defective Airlounge which was sent to the OP by some other person and the OP sent the same Airlounge to the complainant as a replacement. Thereafter, again the complainant lodged a telephonic complainant and spoke to Ms. Nancy and lodged a complainant about the persistent defective services but the complainant was asked to send the defective Airlounge back to the Office of the OP and was told that the Airlounge will be repaired at the cost of the complainant only. On this a legal notice was sent to the OP on 08.06.09, but the OP did not reply the legal notice sent to them.

 2]          The complainant has stated that the OP has provided the defective product persistently throughout and harassed the complainant time and again to incur expenses on his behalf but have still not rectified their wrongful acts by indulging into evil, unethical, unfair and mal-trade practices due to which the complainant suffered mental tension, harassment and emotional distress with no fault of the complainant at all. Therefore, the complainant has prayed, that the OP may be directed to pay the amount spent in all by the complainant and other additional relief or in the alternate to which the complainant is entitled in law and to grant equity.

3]             Notice of the complaint for written reply and evidence was sent to OP, seeking their version of the case. On 5.11.09, Sh. Navjeet Singh , Sales Executive/ Representative appeared on behalf of OP and sought time to file reply & evidence. None appeared on 26.11.09, on behalf of OP, accordingly, OP was proceeded against ex-parte.

4]           The complainant led evidence in support of his contention.

5]           We have heard the Counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 

6]           There is no doubt about the fact that the complainant had ordered for a Airlounge to the OP which is fully substantiated from the receipt vide invoice number V000004959dated 15.04.09, vide which the complainant paid Rs.6,294/-. His contention is that OP in their advertisement on Television Channels, it was openly declared that incase their product is found defective or not working properly, they will refund the full amount.  The complainant received the product Airlounge on 20.04.09 and only after 2 days the Airlounge started leaking from the lower portion and it got deflated gradually.  Annexure C-2 and C-3 are the covering letter and courier receipt which show that the complainant spent Rs.1,000/- as courier charges to sent the defective Airlounge back to OP and it was received on 29.04.09 by the office of OP.  The complainant received the replaced Airlounge but that was also having the same defect as the previous one.  The complainant again sent it back to the Goods Return Department on 18.05.09 annexure C-4 and C-5, through Indian Posts after spending Rs.252/- for the defective Airlounge. 

7]           In our opinion this is a case where a company had given a glamorous advertisement to sell its products by luring the gullible customers and lateron duping them by neither providing them functional products nor refunding them the amount paid by them.   In the case in hand, the complainant has placed on record the letter dated 13.05.09, annexure C-4 purportedly sending back the product in question and was asked to return it back for replacement.  Third time the replaced product was also found defective.  Annexure C-6 is the copy of legal notice sent by complainant regarding the defective Airlounge but the complainant did not receive the reply till date and now he has requested for the refund of Rs. 6294/-.

8]           In view of the above discussions we are of the opinion that the complainant has sufficiently proved his case by way of documentary evidence placed on record.  Therefore in this said circumstance we accept the complaint partly and hold OP rendering deficient services to the complainant and unfair trade practice.  Accordingly we direct OP to refund the amount spent by complainant for the purchase of Airlounge i.e. Rs.6294/- and the amount spent by him on sending the defective Airlounge back i.e. Rs.1,252/-. Besides this we also impose on the OP a penalty in the sum of Rs.5,000/- for being paid as compensation on account of  harassment and mental agony cause to the complainant and for indulging in unfair trade practice alongwith litigation costs of Rs.2,200/-, which shall be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which he shall liable to pay the same alongwith interest @8%p.a., since the date of purchase of Airlounge i.e. 15.04.09 till realization.  Accordingly the complaint stands allowed in the afore- said manner.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.

                                                                                                                                                                                        7.12.09