Orissa

Baleshwar

CC/30/2024

Rajesh Das Mohapatra, aged 38 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager- cum- Customer Executive of Cultsport, Bengaluru - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Shyamalendu Panda & associates

26 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BALASORE
AT- KATCHERY HATA, NEAR COLLECTORATE, P.O, DIST- BALASORE-756001
 
Complaint Case No. CC/30/2024
( Date of Filing : 05 Apr 2024 )
 
1. Rajesh Das Mohapatra, aged 38 years
S/o. Kishore Chandra Das Mohapatra, House No. P/ 107, Jadpur, Near Naya Bazar Level crossing, P.O- Nuabazar, Dist- Balasore- 756001.
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager- cum- Customer Executive of Cultsport, Bengaluru
18th Cross road, Sector- 4, HSR Layout, Bengaluru- 560102.
Karnataka
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. NILAKANTHA PANDA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Sri Shyamalendu Panda & associates, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 26 Nov 2024
Final Order / Judgement

SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)

            The complainant has filed this complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in-after called as the “Act”) against the OP alleging deficiency in service with a prayer for compensation.

2.         The case of the complainant, in a nut-shell, is that he ordered a treadmill from the OP on 22.7.2023 on payment of Rs.31,499/- through UPI mode vide invoice No.1669649227 for the use for his mother and himself and received the same. While using the treadmill, there was some sound and defects for which he lodged complaint through WhatsApp on 20.11.2023. On 19.12.2023, again the complainant shared his grievance, but received no response from the side of OP. But on 2.1.2024, the technician of OP instead of going for replacement took the roller of the treadmill for repairing although the product was covering the warranty period. The service persons of the OP assured to resolve the matter by the end of January, 2024, but till date no reply is received. Lastly, the complainant was constrained to send legal notice against the OP on 9.3.2024 and the OP on receiving the same, mailed to refund the amount, but not yet refund the amount. Hence, this case.

3.         In the present case, in spite of receipt of notice, OP did not choose to appear nor filed his written version: hence, he was set ex parte.

4.         To substantiate his case, the complainant has filed the photocopies of documents viz. Tax invoice No.1669649227 and shipment No.H27389549664 dated 22.7.2023 which disclosed that the complainant had ordered one motor treadmill and paid Rs.31,499/- in favour of the OP (Annexure-1). Warranty card (Annexure-2) shows the warranty period of different parts, legal notice dated 9.3.2024 and postal registration receipt (Annexure-3) and medical papers of his motor (Annexure-4).

 5.        On perusal of the above documents (Annexure-1 to Annexure-3), it appears that the complainant had ordered motor treadmill on 22.7.2023 from the OP and Rs.31,499/-, the cost of that product, was also paid by the complainant on the same day to the OP through online. As the complainant did not satisfied himself with the product received by him, he lodged complaint on 19.12.2023 and on 2.1.2024, the technician of the OP came and took the roller of the treadmill for repairing instead of replacement although validity of the warranty period of the product. When the complainant again lodged complaint, the service person of the OP assured to resolve the problem by the end of January, but till today the OP neither replaced the product nor returned the value of the product. In this case, as it appears, the OP did not appear in this case to challenge the testimony of the complainant. Thus, the solitary evidence adduced on behalf of the complainant remains unchallenged, thus it can be used against the OP. The very fact in the present case is that the OP refused to receive the notice of this Commission and not even taken any initiative to solve the issue which itself indicates that the OP is guilty of selling adulterated product and consequent deficiency in service by his negligent attitude in attending to the complainant on the matter which is brought to its notice, which otherwise attributes a deficiency in service towards the complainant. Therefore, the OP is liable for the compensation, as prayed by the complainant.

            Hence, it is ordered -

O   R   D   E   R

            Having regard to the judgement reflected above, the case of the complainant be and the same is allowed on ex-parte against the O.P. The O.P is hereby directed to:-

  1. refund Rs.31,499/-, the cost of the alleged product or replace it with a new one of same model, to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum, from 22.07.2023 till its actual realization.
  2. pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-, to the complainant, towards compensation for mental agony, harassment & litigation cost.

            All the aforesaid awarded amounts shall be paid by the O.P to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to realize the same from the O.P through the process of law.      

            Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 26th day of November, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. NILAKANTHA PANDA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.