DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date Of Filing: 11.01.2024.
CC/18/2024
Vanitha.G, W/o.Anoop, - Complainant
No.16A, Chandra Nagar, Gate 1,
Behind Post Office, Chandra Nagar,
Palakkad-678 732.
(By Adv.K.Divya)
Vs
1. The Authorised Signatory, -Opposite Parties
Infiniti Retail Ltd. (Trading as CROMA),
63, Stadium Bye pass road,
Palakkad-678 001.
2. The Authorised Signatory,
Infiniti Retail Ltd., Unit No.701 and 702, Wing A,
7th Floor, Caledonia, Sahar Road,
Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 069.
(OPs-parties-in-person)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant.
The complainant placed order for certain electronic items with the opposite party on 19.02.2023 for total value Rs.3,04,894.40. Rs.91,468.32 was given as advance, and the balance amount to be paid was Rs.2,13,426.08. Later on 22.03.2023 the complainant purchased Faberhood Zenith FL SC ACBK 60, against the payment of Rs.24,240/-. On 01.04.2023, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party and paid the balance amount of Rs.1,85,948.09/-. But the 1st opposite party informed that “the refrigerator which the complainant had booked is out of stock and at present model is not available.” As the items were booked for the house warming ceremony, the complainant had to conduct the function with a display piece provided by the opposite party. Further, she had to purchase a different model that too by paying a huge cost and not matching with the interior of the house. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Further, the 1st opposite party did not deliver the Havells Ketttle 1.2 Litre Aqua Blue 1500 so far. Because of the activities of the 1st opposite party, the complaint could not conduct the house warming ceremony in the expected manner which affected her reputation. Hence, this complaint is filed seeking a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for delay in delivery, deficiency in service, mental agony, loss of reputation etc.
2. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. They entered appearance and filed their version denying the allegation levelled by the complainant. According to them, the complainant booked the items on 19.02.2023 by paying an advance of Rs.91,468/32 against the invoice price of Rs.3,04,894.40. The advance closing date is only 15 days from advance paid date and when complainant wanted to take delivery on 22.03.2023, it was more than one month since the advance was paid when the particular model (LG SBS) was out of stock and the 1st opposite party provided the display piece of the same model for conducting the house warming function. Finally, the complainant closed the invoice on 30.04.2023 voluntarily opting for a different model of refrigerator. All products except Havells Kettle were delivered and refund was also given for the kettle not delivered.
3. Based on the pleadings of the complainant and opposite parties, the following issues were framed;
1. Whether there was a concluded sale agreement between the complainant and the opposite party with respect to the Fridge and Kettle?
2. Whether the complainant had adhered to the payment schedule in effecting total invoice cost within 15 days of advance payment?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Any other reliefs.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 to A7(series) as evidence. Ext.A1 is the copy of advance invoice issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party on 19.02.2023, Ext.A2 is the invoice dated 31.04.2023, Ext.A3 is the invoice dated 25.04.2023, Ext.A4 is the invoice dated 27.04.2023, Exts.A5 and A6 are the statements of complainant’s HDFC Credit Card and Ext.A7 series is the legal notice got issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party along with postal receipt and acknowledgement signed by the 1st opposite party. The opposite parties did not file proof affidavit and adduce any documentary evidence in support of their pleadings.
5. Issue Nos.1 and 2
The complainant has not produced any document signed by the complainant and the 1st opposite party which can be construed as a sale agreement. However, Ext.A1 is the advance invoice dated 19.02.2023 clearly showing the items ordered by the complainant from the 1st opposite party by paying an advance payment of Rs.91,468.32. The delivery date of each item is specifically mentioned in the said invoice/order form. Further, in page 2 of Ext.A1 it is mentioned that
“Maximum repayment date should be within 10 days from advance payment date or must be paid before the delivery date whichever is earlier”.
From Exts.A6 and A7, it is evident that the complainant approached the 1st opposite party only on 01.04.2023 with the balance payment of Rs.1,85,948.09. Hence, it is clear that the complainant did not adhere to the payment schedule stipulated and hence not entitled to claim the delivery of items as per the booking order dated 19.02.2023.
6. From the above paragraph, it is clear that the complainant failed to approach the 1st opposite party with balance payment within the time period specified by the 1st opposite party while booking the order. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As far as the delivery of Kettle is concerned, though the opposite party has admitted their failure to make delivery and confirmed having made refund, there is no evidence to prove that. Hence, this is to be treated as a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.
7. As deficiency in service/unfair trade practice is observed only in the case of delivery of the Kettle, there is no reason to allow the huge amount of compensation as per the complainant’s pleadings.
8. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed in part ordering the following reliefs;
1) The 1st opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1,549/- being the cost of the Havells Kettle not delivered to the complainant along with interest @ 10% pa from 19.02.2023 till the date of refund.
2) The complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.5,000/-.
3) The opposite parties is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of the order till the date of final payment
Pronounced in open court on this the 3rd day of October, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V,
PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K,
MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: The copy of the advance invoice issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party dated 19.02.2023.
Ext.A2: The copy of the invoice dated 25.04.2023.
Ext.A3: The copy of the invoice dated 27.04.2023.
Ext.A4: Invoice dated 27.04.2023.
Exts.A5 and A6: Copies of the statements of complainant’s HDFC Credit Card.
Ext.A7 series: Copy of the legal notice got issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party along with postal receipt and acknowledgement signed by the 1st opposite party.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost : 2,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
