DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.162/10.10.2008 Decided on : 11.02.2009 Ved Pal S/o Sh.Punjaba Ram S/o Sh.Surjan Ram, resident of Ward No.3, Mansa, c/o M/s Punjab Mobile Parts, One-way Traffic Road, Near K.S. Sweets, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Tele Mart Shopping Network Pvt.Ltd, 340 A.D., Scheme No.74-C, Vijay Nagar, Indore (MP) 452 010 through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Director. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Sweet Kumar Singla, Advocte counsel for the Complainant Opposite Party exparte. Before: Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.P.S. Dhanoa, President. This complaint has been filed, by Sh.Ved Pal son of Sh. Punjaba Ram, resident of Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), against Tele Mart shopping Network, Indore, State of Madhya Pradesh, through its Proprietor/ Partner/ Director, on the averments, which may briefly be described as under: 2. That the opposite party is dealing with various products and advertise them, on electronic media, for increase of their sale and business. The complainant, after seeing the advertisement, in the television, decided Contd........2 : 2 : to purchase the product manufactured, by the opposite party, known as Hanuman Kavach. He made a telephonic call, to the concerned T.V. Channel, on telephone No.0731-4087000. The person, who responded the said call, disclosed his name as Dinesh Yadav and complainant placed order, for Hanuman Kavach, with him. The opposite party, then sent bill No.987 dated 6.9.2008, in the sum of Rs.3400/-, and charged a sum of Rs.100/-, and the complainant paid total sum of Rs.3500/-. He received the packet containing the above said product at Mansa, as such, he is consumer of the opposite party, qua the said product, within the ambit of its definition given in the Act. On opening the packet, the complainant found contained therein a locket of Sai Baba and a disk. He immediately called the opposite party, and the official, who attended his telephonic call, informed, that error had taken place, in dispatch of the product and asked him, to return the packet. The complainant returned the packet, at the address of the opposite party, through 'First Flight Courier Service' and one Nitin, employed in the office of the opposite party, received the same, on 26.9.2008, at 11.30 A.M. As per the record supplied by the above said courier service, to the complainant, the said employee of the opposite party further delivered the packet, to Dinesh Yadav. However, the requisite product was not sent. After the complainant contacted on telephone again, he was told that no parcel, has been received in the office of the opposite party. As such, there is deficiency in service, because of which complainant, has been subjected, to physical and mental harassment and he is entitled, to refund of Rs.3500/-, deposited with the opposite party and Rs.70,000/-, as compensation, on account of physical and mental harassment, alongwith interest @ 18% from 6.9.2008, till the date of payment. As the opposite party, has failed to do so, hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given, to the opposite party, but it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 8.1.2009. 4. In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit Contd........3 : 3 : Ext.C-4 reiterating all the allegations, made in the complaint, on solemn affirmation, almost in the verbatim. He has also tendered in evidence, copy of bill, Ext.C-1, issued by the opposite party, in the sum of Rs.3500/-. He has further tendered the copy of the courier receipt Ext.C-2 and the relevant page of register maintained by the First Flight Courier Service Ext.C-3 containing entry about delivery of packet sent back by the complainant. The perusal of these documents, goes to show that the packet received, by the complainant containing the requisite product, was returned to the opposite party through the above said courier after some other product was received. The above said oral and documentary evidence adduced on record, has gone uncontroverted, as the opposite party, has not bothered, to come forward and contest the complaint. 5. After critically evaluating the evidence adduced on record by the complainant, we have come to the conclusion, that he is 'consumer' under the opposite party, qua the said product, manufactured and supplied by it, and there is 'deficiency in service', on its part. Therefore, the opposite party, has no option, but to refund the amount of Rs.3500/-, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. They are further liable, to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the complainant, on account of costs incurred by him for filing the complaint. However, since interest has been granted, therefore, compensation cannot be granted to the complainant simultaneously. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite party, to refund the amount of Rs.3500/-, to the complainant, with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. The opposite party is also burdened with Rs.2,000/-, as costs of filing of the complaint incurred by the complainant. The above said payment will be made, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Contd........4 : 4 : 7. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 11.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, P.S.Dhanoa, Member. Member. President.
