Date of Filing:23.11.2023

Date of Disposal:15.07.2024

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

SMT.NANDINI.H.KUMBHAR, MEMBER

1. The Complaint is filed by the complainant under section 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 against the OP alleging deficiency of service  seeking direction to the OP to refund a sum of Rs.768/- and  compensation of  Rs.2,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and such other reliefs.

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows:

           This is the case of the complainant that the complainant ordered food from OP vide order No.15604155630034 for a sum  Rs.768/- on 11.10.2023 and the complainant able to get the food within 02 hours as he was much hungry  and he could not bear it and cancelled the order within 03 minutes and then the complainant contacted the customer care of OP for refund  process of amount paid, but the OP informed the complainant that refund is not possible and he will also not get the food. The complainant submits that the complainant communicated the OP for refund of amount, but till date the OP have not resolved the issue. Due to the act of the OP, the complainant got issued legal notice on 18.10.2023 calling upon them to refund the amount paid by the complainant for food through online order, but the OP have not responded to the legal notice. Aggrieved by the act of OP the complainant filed the present complaint seeking  relief as prayed in the complaint.

3.  Notice to the OP duly served, OP remained absent and they were placed ex-parte. Then OP appeared through counsel by filing necessary application to set-aside ex-parte order, but after expiry of statutory period of 45 days, the right of OP to file version is forfeited and version of OP is taken as not filed  and OP is only permitted to participate in the proceedings. 

4. Complainant filed chief examination affidavit by re-iterating the complaint allegations and also filed relevant documents in support of their plea.

5.  Heard arguments and matter is reserved for orders.

6. The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is  entitled for the relief sought?
2. What order?

8. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1           :       Partly Affirmative

Point No.2           :       As per final order.

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1:-The OP represented by counsel, despite of sufficient opportunities OP failed to file version.

10. The complainant filed chief examination affidavit by re-iterating the entire complaint allegations as against the OP and also produced relevant documents in support of their contention.   From perusal of  documents produced, it is crystal clear that the complainant had placed an order for food from OP for a sum of Rs.768/- on 11.10.2023. As per documents produced and the complainant also produced legal notice, but the OP wherein the complainant sought for refund of Rs.768/- and other reliefs.

11. From the perusal of all these documents, the commission is of the definite opinion that, there is a transaction between  the complainant and OP. That  the complainant had ordered food from OP by paying a sum of Rs.768/-. Further, the complainant was unable to get the food within 02 hours as he was so much hungry and could not bear and cancelled the order within 03 minutes. When the complainant contacted the OP for refund, the OP has informed that the refund is not possible and the complainant will also not get the food. Despite of numerous intimations and requests there was no resolution  provided to the complainant nor refunded the amount. It is crystal clear from the events that the conduct of the OP is attracts deficiency in service, for which the OP is held liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant.

12. The commission perused the relevant evidence submitted by the complainant and in view of the unchallenged averments of OP and for not chosen to contest the matter by participating in the proceedings of the complaint is fatal to the case on hand.  And the absence and  not filing version and affidavit is a clear admission from OP side, that whatever the complaint allegations as against the OP is to be held as proved fact.

13. In view of the above discussion,  and on perusal of complaint averments and documents produced, the complaint deserves to be allowed and OP is held liable to refund the value of food along with other reliefs. Accordingly, we answer Point No.1 in partly affirmative.

14. POINT NO.2:- In the result,  for the forgoing reasons, we passed the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint  is allowed in part.
2. The OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.768/- to the complainant.
3. Further, the OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings within 45  days from the date of this order.
4. Furnish free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 15^th July  2024)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

     (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)                    (SHRINIDHI.H.N)            

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Chethan.M.- Who being the complainant.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP way of affidavit:- Nil

Documents produced by the OP: Nil

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

     (NANDINI H KUMBHAR)                (SHRINIDHI.H.N)            

           MEMBER                                  MEMBER

 SKA*