DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.98/2013

Mr. Vinod Chandra Sharma,

R/o 25G/1A, Gali No. 34,

Indra Park, Palam Colony,

New Delhi-110045.

                                                                                            ….Complainant

Versus

The Managing Director,

Telemart Shopping Network Pvt.,

11 Sampat Farm,

Opp. Agrawal Public School,

Indore-452001, Madhya Pradesh

OR

Telemart Shopping Network Pvt.,

K-20, 2^nd Floor, Part-2,

Alankar Cinema Road,

Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024

OR

K-17, 2^nd Floor, Part-2,

Lajpat Nagar-2, Delhi-110024

                                                                                       ….Opposite Party

                                                           Date of Institution        : 26.02.2013       Date of Order                : 21.01.2021

Coram:

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

1. On the strength of his complaint, the complainant has prayed for the following reliefs:-

1. direct the opposite party to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the complainant;
2.  direct the opposite party to make up for the mistake by refunding of Rs.3,260/- along with compensation to the complainant;
3.  direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family members; and
4. direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of this petition.
   1. Complainant after seeing an advertisement of ‘Sandhi Sudha Plus’ Herbal Oil on television purchased the oil from Telemart Shopping Pvt.(OP) The advertisement hosted by film star Mr. Govinda promised to provide relief from joint pains. Complainant purchased the said product from OP by paying Rs.3,260/- and received the product on 27.10.2012. It is averred that the complainant was not satisfied with the product as the herbal oil, rather than having any positive effect adversely affected the knee joints of complainant’s father, for whom the complainant had purchased the oil. Rather complainant’s father is advised for knee operation as his joint pain had worsened due to the use of the said product. OP had mentioned that if somebody was not happy with the product then his money would be refunded within 15 days. Accordingly the complainant called the OP to refund the money as he was not satisfied with the product but employees of OP refused to refund and disconnected the call.
   2. Therefore, complainant approached this Commission alleging deficiency in service on part of OP.

2. As no one appeared on behalf of OP despite notice being sent by registered post OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 30.04.2013.
3. Exparte evidence on behalf of the complainant has been filed.
4. Complainant in support of his complaint has filed only two documents. One is an internet copy annexed as Annexure-1 with the complaint and the second is a letter written to OP regarding deficiency in service by not refunding the amount paid as promised, dated 23.01.2013 which we have marked as Mark-A. 
5. We have heard the complainant and perused the material placed on record carefully.
6. Averments made in the complaint and evidence led by the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unchallenged.
7. On perusal of the documents filed by the complainant, it is noticed that Annexure-1 annexed with the complaint only reflects that the complainant received a product from Sandhisudhaplus.com on 27.10.2012 after having paid the amount of Rs.3,260/-. This document does not reflect any Refund Policy or any terms and conditions wherein OP promises to refund the amount within 15 days if the customer is unsatisfied with the product.
8. The second document that is a letter written by the complainant to OP is a Self Supporting document/ Evidence which is not acknowledged by OP. No proof whether the OP has received the said letter has been annexed thereto.
9. Complainant has failed to prove that OP had promised to refund his money within 15 days in case buyer was not satisfied with the product. Mere averments without any convincing evidence does not prove any deficiency on behalf of OP.
10. Without any documentary evidence of the refund policy of OP this Commission is of the opinion that the complainant’s case is meritless. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

          Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 21.01.2021