IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
Case no. CC/85/2016
Date of filing: 01-06-2016 Date of disposal: 29-08-2017
Complainant – Sri Dipankar Bakshi, Sri Swapan Bakshi,
1no. Dinu Mandal Lane, PO – Khagra,PS – Berhampore,
District – Murshidabad, Pin Code – 742103, West Bengal.
VS.
- The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, 37/A, R. N. Tagore Road, Berhampore,
District – Murshidabad, Pin Code – 742101, West Bengal.
- CEO,
Ebson EWay Infomedia (EBS),
3rd floor, Suashis IT Park, Building – ‘B’,CIS no. 68/E, Plot no. 134(1),
Dattapada Road, Boriveli (East), Mumbai – 400066, Maharastra.
Present : Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya, - President
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty - Member
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee – Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee, Presiding Member.
This case has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C P Act’1986, praying for return of an amount of Rs. 8999/-, alleged to be debited through his ATM / Debit card, for an online purchase of mobile phone, paid but not delivered, to the complainant and a compensation of Rs. 5,000/-.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that, on 06-03-2016, the complainant, made an online payment, to OP no. 2, for purchasing a mobile phone (Asus ZenfoneMax, Color – Black, Model – ZC550KL), from Shopiwo.com, by paying an amount of Rs. 8999/- from his account no. 50100136790502, maintained with HDFC Bank, Berhampore Branch, through his ATM / Debit Card.
As reported and alleged by the complainant, though the amount was debited, forthwith, from his above mentioned account, the booked mobile phone, was not delivered to him. Hence, the instant complaint has been lodged before this Forum.
The case of the OP no. 1, in brief, is that, as intended by the complainant, the amount had been debited from his above mentioned account and that is the only part, they have played, in the instant case. In their written statement dated 02 -02- 2017, they have stated that the entire responsibility of delivering the phone lies with OP no. 2 and Shopiwo.com. They also prayed for dismissal of the instant case, as, according to their interpretation, the complainant, is not a consumer, alongwith some other points.
As the OP no. 2 has not appeared, the case was heard, ex-parte, against OP no. 2.
Upon pleadings of both the parties, the following points have been raised, for disposal of the complaint.
Points to be considered
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief, as prayed for.
Decisions with reasons
To prove the case, the complainant as well as the OP no. 1, have adduced, affidavit – in Chief and WV, respectively, alongwith requisite materials. OP no. 2, remained absent, throughout the entire period of the case and hence the case was heard, ex-parte, against them.
It is observed, and as confirmed by OP no.1, the amount towards, purchase price of the mobile phone, in question, had been debited from the account of the complainant and remitted to OP no.2 and as the mobile phone is yet to be delivered, to the complainant, inspite of his repeated perusal, the complainant should get back his money, paid for purchase of the mobile phone, alongwith a compensation, for the harassment and mental agony faced by him alongwith the litigation cost.
Hence,
ORDERED
that the Consumer Complaint no. 85/2016, is hereby allowed in part, instructing the OP no. 2, to return the money, taken from the complainant, towards, purchase of the mobile phone (Rs. 8999/-), alongwith a compensation of Rs. 1000/-, within 30 days, from the date of receipt of this order, in default, the OPno. 2 will have to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- per day’s delay and the amount, so accumulated, shall be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid account.
Let a copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost to each of the parties, on contest, by hand, under proper acknowledgement / be sent, forthwith, under ordinary post, to the concerned parties, as per rules, for information and necessary action.
