Date of Filing: 30.06.2020
Date of Order:16.06.2021
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)
HON’BLE Sri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B., MEMBER
On this the Wednesday the 16th day of June, 2021
C.C.No. 213/2020
Between
Karthik Rallabhandi,
S/o Ramachandra Srinivas Rallabhandi,
aged about 33 years, Occ: Pvt Employee,
R/o: 403, Kashi Manjeera Nest Apartments,
Lane No.4, Street No.6,
Near Johnson Grammar School,
West Marredpally, Hyderabad – 500026.
Mobile No. 8139999275.
….Complainant
And
The Manager,
M/s. Hindware Home Retail Pvt. Ltd,
(Retail Div.) Regional Office at Hindware,
Home Retail Pvt. Ltd., 2, Red Cross Pace,
Kolkata – 700 001
… Opposite Party
Counsel for the Complainant : Party-in-Person
Counsel for the Opposite party : Absent
O R D E R
(By Smt. P. Kasthuri B.Com, L.L.M., PRESIDENT(FAC)on behalf of the Bench)
1. The present complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs.9,441/- along with interest @24% p.a. together with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/- .
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The case of the complainant is that he booked a Hindware Cook Top of Model L0RENZO 4BA1 SAP 512571 with HSN Code No. 84161000 on 08.05.2020 by paying a sum of Rs.9,441/- to the opposite party and the opposite party has delivered the said item on 26.05.2020 to the complainant but on delivery the said piece was found with the manufacturing defect in the toughened glass. Complainant immediately made complaint to the opposite party informing the defect and requested for collecting the defective piece and arrange for the refund of the amount paid by him. Thereafter, he tried to contact the opposite party through its Toll-free number several times but he got the VRM stating that due to Covid-19, he was unable to receive the call, as such he sent a mail to opposite party on 01-06.2020 and thereafter an another mail was sent on 07.06.2020, to which, the opposite party though responded and assured to provide the possible resolution, no action was taken. Hence the complainant having no other option, he approach this Commission alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. In the course of enquiry, the complainant has filed evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and got marked exhibits Ex.A1 and A2. The opposite party was called absent inspite of the notice served, as such the opposite party was set-exparte.
On consideration of the material brought on record, the following points have emerged for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed for?
- If so, to what relief.?
Point No.1 & 2:-
We have perused the entire record on hand. It is evidenced under Ex.A1, that the complainant has booked a Hindware Cook Top of Model L0RENZO 4BA1 SAP 512571 with HSN Code No. 84161000 for purchase from the opposite party on 08.03.2020 and the booking order was confirmed under Ex.A2 showing the details of the product booked and the amount paid by the complainant. Ex.A2(2), is the E-mail sent to the opposite party along with the attachment of photos informing and showing them about the defective piece delivered to the complainant. Further under pages 4 to 31 of Ex.A2, there are several E-mails sent by the complainant reminding and requesting the opposite party for collecting the defective piece and arranging for the refund of the amount paid by him but the opposite party failed to respond.
Based on the evidence brought on record , we are convinced that the complainant has been supplied with the defective product and despite several E-mails and phone calls on the Toll-free number of the opposite party company, the complainant could not receive proper response from the opposite party and the product supplied to the complainant remained unused due to which the complainant is subjected to mental agony and trauma Hence, we are of the strong opinion that there is not only deficiency in service but there is also unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party. As such, in circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion to allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund to the complaint an amount of Rs. 9,441/- along with interest @9% p.a from the date of payment i.e, 21.05.2020 to till the date of realization and award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and trauma undergone by the complainant. Point No.1 & 2 are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.3
In the result; The complaint is allowed, and direct the opposite party ;
1. to refund to the complainant, an amount of Rs. 9,441/- along with interest @9% p.a from the date of payment made by the complainant i.e, 21.05.2020 to till the date of realization.
2. to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and trauma undergone by the complainant ;
3. to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards costs of litigation.
Time for compliance 30 days
Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this 16th the day of June, 2021.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
NIL
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A1– Copy of Tax invoice dt.21.05.2020.
Ex.A2 – Copy of E-Mails Correspondence on various dates.
Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:
Nil.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
