BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              :           PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           :           MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             :           MEMBER

C.C.No. 346/2021 Filed on 16/11/2021

ORDER DATED: 23/08/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

Complainant ordered 4 furniture products including the solid wood  jali dining set on 20/12/2020 for Rs.88,775/-.  Complainant had paid the amount via online.  Complainant states that the complainant received the product in the month of January 2021 but one product i.e., solid wood jali dining set was missing.  Therefore, complainant contacted respondent’s concern to know about the delivery of the missing product and respondent’s concern had assured complainant that the product will be delivered soon but till today, the said product was not delivered, which showed the unprofessional attitude of respondent’s concern.  Complainant further states that opposite part had provided only delivery date to complainant but never delivered the product and when complainant asked for the refund then there was no proper response from respondent’s end, which showed the irresponsible behavior of opposite party.  Complainant has been trying to contact respondent via the medium of calls & emails but complainant has not received any constructive reply from respondent’s end.  Complainant had also approached the consumerhelpline.gov.in regarding the issue having the grievance No.2700260 dated 24/04/2021 but still, respondent’s concern had not provided any resolution to complainant.  Complainant till now did not receive the refund amount despite several intimations made to respondent’s concern.  That complainant felt deceived and cheated for such actions of respondent’s concern.  That complainant made several follow ups with respondent’s concern regarding this matter but there was no positive response from respondent’s end.  The complainant states that being deprived of the proper and facilitated result of the service, in respect of the denial of the aforementioned services, the complainant notified to the respondent to provide accurate result of the service they have not provided any constructive reply to the complainant.  The complainant states that the above mentioned dispute clearly states that there was negligence on the respondent and the opposite party company is running an unfair trade practice in order to dupe the hard earned money of the complainant.  Hence the complaint. 

After accepting the notice the opposite party was absent.  Hence opposite party set ex parte.

Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ext.A1 to A6 marked. 

Issues to be considered are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. If so, what is the cost and relief?

Issues No.1&2:-  We perused relevant documents on records.  As per Ext.A1 is the cost of solid wood jali dining set for an amount of Rs.35,999/-.  If is evident from Ext.A3 that in the account of complainant debited Rs.88,775/- and transfer on 20/12/2020.  Ext.A2 is the invoice of dining set for Rs.35,999/- Ext.P4 is the copy of grievance details.  The complainant stated that he order four furniture products including the solid wood jali dining set for an amount of Rs.88,775/- and paid the amount through online.  The complainant received the product in the month of January 2021 and missing the product of dining set.  Ext.A5 series shows the email sent by the complainant and the opposite party and promised the complainant to order is expected to be shipped latest by 20^th of this month.  But the complainant stated that the opposite party had not sent the dining set and refund the amount Ext.A6 is the legal notice sent to the opposite party.  But the opposite party has not produced evidence to disprove the case of the complainant.  In Ext.A1 to A6 documents proved the case of complainant.  On the available evidence proved that the opposite party had not given the dining set to complainant.

In view of the above discussion we find that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 In the result complaint allowed.  We direct the opposite party to refund Rs.35,999/- as cost of dining set and pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and pay Rs.2,500/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization. 

    A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 23^rd  day of August,  2022.

R

C.C. No. 346/2021

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                                                                                                                                                           Sd/-

PRESIDENT