District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.393/2022.

 Date of Institution: .26.07.2022.

Date of Order: 16.05.2023

Debasish Khatua, Plot No. 567, Sector-15a, Escort Nagar, Near UCO Bank, Faridabad, Haryana – 121007.

                                                                   …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

The Authorized Signatory Smapm

int, 206, Bldg.3, Sec.-3, Millenium Business Park, Mahape, Navi, Mumbai, Maharashtra, Maharashtra – 400710.

                                                                   …Opposite parties……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana…………Member.

PRESENT:                   Complainant in person.

                             Opposite party ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2023.

ORDER:  

                   The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased product on mobile application dated 12/04/2022 dated id. 3172361 and the complainant had paid down payment Rs.459 for order value Rs.4590/- for the

above mentioned order.  The complainant stated that the product was not delivered and the opposite party’s given used coupons against order value, no response to the complainant till date however immediately the complainant contacted the opposite party’s concerned and asked for a refund but no resolution from the opposite party’s end even the opposite party’s concern blocked his the opposite party’s concern id.  The complainant stated that he raised this issue to the opposite party’s concern but he was not provided wth any vivid resolution such act of the opposite parties was highly unexpected and u nprofessional and that the complainant had been extremely harassedduring the whole nprocedure  however being deprived of the facilitated service the complainant intimated the oposite nparty concern on severaln occasions in respect of the above mentioned issue.  However, the opposite party concern had acted like flogging or a dead horse in order ot provide resolution which was extremely unprofessional in nature.  The ocmplainant stated that the complainant had not been getting good rsponse from the opposite party’s end regarding the same given the unjustified, unacceptable and unrasonable delay in providing the same from the opposite party’s end and intentional lack of cooperation from the opposite party concern as a consequence of which, the complainant had suffered severe and grave loss and harassment, in light of the aforementioned intentional act of negligence committed by the opposite party concern, the ocmplainant had requested the opposite party concern several times for providing the said service but unfortunately, the complainant had got “No Support” from the opposite party’s side to resolve this issue which was utterly unprofessional from the opposite parpty’s end being deprived of the faciliitated support, the complainant intimated the opposite party’s concern on several occasions in respect of the said service however, but the opposite party concern neglected in order to provide any of the aforementioned support due to the opposite

party’s aforementioned  malafide act and conduct the complainant got duped the ahrd earned money of the complainant which was hindering the complainant in an erroneous way as the complainant had been facing the tremendous notice agony and due to the sane the complainant had not got able to live the life in own accord. The complainant stated that being deprived of the proper and facilitated procurement she again and again intimated the opposite party by way of the telephonic conversation and by way of elecatronic mail conversation in order to solve the said issue, however the executive of the oppositeparties have acted like flogging of a dead hors ein lieu of providing the proper serrvises to the complainant and in lieu of providing the constructive reply to her till date.. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:

a)                look into this matter with foremost importance to take necessary steps to render the proper service to the complainant and provide to the complainant Rs.4590/-.

 b)                pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay   costs of litigation.

2.                 Registered notices  issued to opposite party on 15.02.2023 not received back either served or unserved.  Case called several times since morning but none has appeared on behalf of opposite party.  Learned counsel for the complainant filed the tracking report in which the item delivery confirmed. It was already 3.50p.m.  Hence, opposite party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 20.03.2022.   

3.                The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.

4                  We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party – Snapmint Credit advisory. with the prayer to: a)  look into this matter with foremost importance to take necessary steps to render the proper service to the complainant and provide to the complainant Rs.4590/-.  b) pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)  pay   costs of litigation.

                   To establish his case, the complainant  has led in his evidence Ex.PW1/A – affidavit of Debasish Khatua, Ex.C-1 – Loan Term Sheet, Ex.C-2 – order status shown seller confirmation & preparing for dispatch,Ex.C-3 – call details, Ex.C-4 – transacitons detail, Ex.C-5 – order status updated by sanapmint Verification Voucher sent.

 6.               There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party  has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party.

7.                Opposite party is directed  to pay Rs.4,590/- alongwith interest & 6% p.a from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.  Opposite party is

also directed to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for causing mental agony  & harassment alognwith  Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.    Compliance of this order  be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  File be consigned to the record room.

Announced on:  16.05.2023.                                (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                       Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                   (Indira Bhadana)

                       Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.