West Bengal

Cooch Behar

CC/22/2021

Sri Shambhu Sarkar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Colo Venture, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Santosh Kr. Sah,

14 Mar 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,
B. S. Road, Cooch Behar -736101.
Ph. No. 03582-230696, 222023
E-mail - confo-kb-wb at the rate of nic.in
Web - www.confonet.nic.in
 
Complaint Case No. CC/22/2021
( Date of Filing : 28 Apr 2021 )
 
1. Sri Shambhu Sarkar,
S/o. Late Balaram Sarkar, Vill. Kushiarbari, P.S. Ghoksadanga, Dist. Cooch Behar-735211.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Manager, Colo Venture,
1st Floor, Dadar Dept. Store, N.R. Kabutar Khana, Dadar (W). Mumbai-400028.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. RUMPA MANDAL PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. SUBHAS CHANDRA GUIN MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 14 Mar 2022
Final Order / Judgement

 

Hon’ble Mrs. Rumpa Mandal, Member.

This case arises out of a Complaint u/sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The case of the Complainant in a nutshell is that Complainant Sri. Shambhu Sarkar, had booked a Nikon A-900 Block Camera and accordingly opposite party accepted the order vide order ID0022109862, 0348840000 in his site. Complainant in his complaint petition has mentioned that he is a professional photographer.

On 01.03.20 opposite party delivered the order in a parcel through Flip cart agency  for which complaint paid  Rs.21551/- to O.P. The complainant became astonished when he had opened the parcel. The opposite party sent Nikon S 2900 point & shoot  camera ( Violet) amounting to Rs.5945/- which was  not ordered by the petitioner  and the quality of the camera was very low. The complainant informed the OP through phone call and he sent option to return back  the parcel item. OP assured that the product would be returned within 15 days. But OP did not return the wrong item within 15.03.21. Despite a written complaint filed by the complainant on 25.03.2021 he did not receive any positive response and finally, he was compelled to file this case praying for relief(s). The OP sent one written statement through registered post stating  that Complainant had placed orders with Elipkart and Elipkart delivered the goods and if there was any grievance of the petitioner he could file the case against Elipkart. The OP also stated that the company had many branches and each branch had separate manager and a suit filed against “ Manager” having no legal entity was not maintainable in law. The dealing of the applicant was with the Manager of coloventure, the company colovanture is not liable to the claim of the applicant and lastly stated that the company has not delivered any items to the Applicant. If there was any delivery by the So called Manager the same was by Elikart and Elipkart can be liable to the applicant.

Thereafter, OP did not file any Evidence in chief and written argument. The OP was absent without taking any steps since long time. He did not turn up before this Ld. Commission to contest the case further.

During pendency of the case O.P. had refunded Rs.21,551/- to the Complainant  and Complainant also returned back the disputed camera to the OP.  From the said transaction between Complainant and Op it is proved that Op has acknowledged his liability for faulty Camera. So the complainant is entitled to get relief for mental pain agony and deficiency in service. He is also entitled to get interest on amount paid for the camera.

Points for Consideration

1. Is instant case maintainable?

2. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief?

3.To what other relief if any, complainant is entitled?

Decision with reasons

All the point are taken up together for Consideration. During argument the Ld. Counsel for the OP did not file any written argument & did not appear before the Ld. Commission for the argument. The OP returned the amount of Rs.21551/- & also returned back the disputed camera.

In W/V OP denied all the allegations of the Complainant. However OP had refunded the amount which was paid by the complainant at the time of purchasing the product.

Here the OP had refunded the total amount during pendency of the case. But OP did not pay any amount for mental pain and agony. The complaint should not get deprived of sufficient compensation for the mental pain & agony & harassment arising out of the camera fiasco. As the complainant have not submitted any document supporting his argument that he is a professional photographer, so no payment is made regarding any hamper of his business.

Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to the relief for mental pain & agony & litigation cost. With this all the issues are disposed of.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex-parte. 

The O.P is directed to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service and mental pain & agony and Rs.2,000/- for litigation cost. The O.P is liable to pay the said amount within 60 days from this date, failing which the entire awarded sum will carry interest @ 5% per annum till actual payment.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned party by hand / by Registered post with A/D forthwith, free of cost for information & necessary action, as per rule.

The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official Website www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. RUMPA MANDAL]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SUBHAS CHANDRA GUIN]
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.