DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM.BOLANGIR.
………………….
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
Dated,Bolangir the 20th day of February 2015.
C.C.No. 38 of 2014.
Sanjeeb Kumar Sahu, age-27 years son of Dala Ganjan Sahu.
Resident of village- Badapada (Patnagarh Town),P.O/P.S- Patnagarh
District- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.The Chief MarketingDirector,V4U Shopping Private Limted,
480/481.4th Floor Aggarwal Millenium Tower-2, Netaji
Subhash Palace,Pitampura, New Delhi-110034.
2.The Circulation Manager,Dharitri Navajat Printers & Media Pvt.Ltd.
At-Navajat Printers,B/4,Bareipali, P.O/P.S/Dist- Sambalpur.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Advocate for the Complainant- None.
Adv.for the O.Ps - None.
Date of filing of the case -12.06.2014
Date of order of the case –20.02.2015
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara,President.
In the matter an application u/s.12 of C.P.Act,1986, filed by the complainant against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service.
2. The complainant made the complaint that on dt.22.05.2014 on page No.14 of Dharitri paper he come across an advertisement by V4U Marketing company. The display exhibit states @ 1,999/- by one and get free one Victor brand Mobile, which is combo offer of a Polo club watch free worth Rs 2499/-,again the watch carries six month warranty. In such an alluring purveying of information, the complainant booked the item vide order No.1000192942,VPP No.-CDO 12297801N by COD (cash on delivery) parcel by India Post. In purchase of same, alluring the product was not as the company advertised, the handset found to be of panther company made of china. The product did not function well and the company is not responding to any call or complaint on such defects and deficiencies. The defect caused the mental agony and being harassed instituted the case. Relied on affidavit, COD Business Parcel/Order No.1000192942. Photo copy, Dharitri Adv. paper cut and Original Mobile hand sets (before the forum).
3. On notice the O.P.1 prefers to appear and also not filed any version. So also the O.P.2 did not file any version to make his stand visible and imperative.
4. Heard the complainant and perused the records & documents relevant to the case.
5. On perusal of the record we come across the complainant has purchased the handset from Telemarketing company.The order number and VPP parcel speaks so, even the parcel has been entire deposited before this forum in admission of the purchase and defects committed at O.Ps end.
6. The O.P.1 has received the notice and non appearance or non filing of version on the issue raised amply speaks the company/trader feels it is as empty formality and did not cure the laws of land.
7. On service of notice u/s.28-A (4) All notices required to be served on an opposite party or to complainant shall be deemed to be sufficiently served, if addressed in the case of the opposite party to the place where business or profession is carried and in case of complainant, the place where such person actually and voluntarily resides. In the present case we assert the notice is sufficient and prefer to decide on merits on against both the O.Ps.
8. The materials available on the records states the complainant is a bonafide consumer and the case is not barred of limitation. So also the cause of action is within the jurisdiction. Again the opened VPP speaks the company has committed offence Section-2(v)(1)(i). Falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model- in giving “Panther model” handset in lieu of assured “Victor model” handsets and the sets functional standard is poor and below standard level of operation and coupled with negligence committed under section-2 (1)(x) ( c)- contained in or on anything that is sold, sent, delivered, transmitted or in any other manner, whatsoever made available to a member of the public. So the company material misleads, the public in giving false and misleading representation that the product of victor company is not able to tendered as to the model/brand as advertised. Hence non supply of specific product amounts to gross negligence, thereby committed fault, imperfection, short coming with nature & manner of performance as deficient as claimed by the trader. So in our considered opinion O.Ps are jointly and severally liable to the complainant for such deliberate negligence.
Hence ordered;
The O.P.1 is directed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs 1,000/ (Rupees One thousand) only as compensation for the loss, harassment and mental agony sustained along with a cost of Rs 100/- (Rupees One hundred) only within 45 days of this order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum will accrue on the entire amount from the date of this order till payment.
ii). The O.P.2 is also directed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs 100/- as token penalty for harbouring such mis-leading advertisement for which the complainant and un-identified number of consumer suffered loss, harassment and mental agony sustenance, within 45 days of this order, failing which compensation of Rs 1/- per day will accrue till realization of the penal amount.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015.
I agree. I agree.
(S. Rath) (G.K.Rath) ( P.Samantara)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
