DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 30th day of September 2021
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon.V, President
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member Date of Filing: 21/12/2020
CC/165/2020
Giri.K.P.
5/57, Kovilpalayam House
Narasimukku
Agali Post, Palakkad – 678 581 - Complainant
(Party in Person)
Vs
The Managing Director /Manager
Signaxo India Building No.8
Basement, Arihanth Nagar
Main Rohtak Road,
Punjabi Bagh West,
West Delhi – 110 026 - Opposite party
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A., Member
Brief facts of the complaint.
Complainant placed an online order with the opposite party for the purchase of a mobile booster worth Rs.20,000/-. He wanted to purchase that product in order to improve his mobile net work as he is “working from home” After receiving full payment the opposite party delivered the product on 2/7/2020. But the product received by the complainant was not a branded one as promised and showed in the catalogue and it was a used product with many scratches on it. The staff of the opposite party did not provide an invoice for the transaction which he had made and when asked for the invoice, the opposite party informed him that he has to bear 18% GST charges in order to get it. The complainant is not at all satisfied with the product and the services provided by the opposite party to its customers. The complainant wanted to return the product and get the refund and for that purpose he contacted the opposite party and requested to solve his issue. The company did not solve the issue and the complainant’s effort to get the refund had gone in vain. Complainant faced lot of harassment, mental agony and inconvenience because of the conduct and deficient service of the opposite party. The complainant had caused to sent a lawyer notice on 30/7/2020 and for that also the opposite party did not reply or solve the issue. Even after receiving the full payment, the opposite party failed to provide good service which is a deficiency in service on their part.
So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite party to refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for their deficiency in service and the cost of the litigation.
Complaint admitted and notice issued to the opposite party. The notice to the opposite party returned with an endorsement “refused” Hence the notice is ‘deemed to be served’, opposite party’s name called absent and set exparte. The complainant filed chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to A7 were marked .
Issues
- Whether there is any deficiency in service / unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party ?
- If so, what is the reliefs as to cost and compensation ?
Issues 1 & 2
Heard the complainant. We have perused the affidavit and documents. Ext.A6 is the online purchase payment receipt which shows the payment of Rs.20,000/- by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext.A7 is the copy of the Invoice dated 2/7/2020 issued by the opposite party showing the purchase of SX-JIO Dynamite 2500 Triband Kit for Rs.20,000/-
According to the complainant, on the payment of the full amount, the opposite party delivered the product. But the product was not a branded one as shown in the catalogue and it was a used product with many scratches on it.
Ext.A1 shows different brands of mobile signal boosters offered by the opposite party for sale. But as per the complainant, the product received by him was not branded as shown and it was a used product with many scratches on it. It amounts to unfair trade practice as per S.2(47)(i)(a)&(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The relevant provisions reads as follows;
S.2(47)(i) making any statement whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record, which
(a) falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model.
(c) falsely represent any re-built, second hand, renovated, reconditioned or old goods as new goods.
For this unfair trade practice the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
The complainant contacted the opposite party for getting refund of the amount paid by him as he was not satisfied with the product delivered to him.
Ext.A3 is the e-mail communication between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant sent mail stating that as he was not satisfied with the product, that he wished to return the product and sought for refund. To Ext.A3 the opposite party replied that they cannot approve the complainant’s request, but was ready for a replacement. Since the product delivered was not a new branded one as assured, the complainant didn’t want to take the risk of replacement, instead he insisted on refund of the amount.
If the newly purchased goods suffers from defects and not upto the mark and quality as offered, the complainant is entitled to get refund of the full amount.
Further, according to the complainant, the opposite party refused to provide the invoice for the transaction which he had made and when asked the opposite party informed him that he has to bear 18% GST charges in order to get the invoice. The copy of the invoice produced and marked as Ext.A7 does not have the seal and signature of opposite party and it shows the name of the model and as per the complainant it was sent through whatsapp later only on demand.
It is an unfair trade practice as per Section 2(47)(vii) “not issuing bill or cash memo or receipt for the goods sold or services rendered in such manner as may be prescribed”.
The complainant has undergone mental agony when the newly purchased mobile signal booster did not meet the required standard and specification. He suffered financial loss and mental agony because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the Unfair Trade Practice and deficiency in service on their part.
Since the opposite party remained exparte, the evidence tendered by the complainant stands unrebutted.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party to refund Rs.20,000/-, the price of the purchased product, and to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- for their deficiency in service and Rs.2,500/- as cost of the litigation. Once the order is executed the complainant is directed to return the defective mobile-charge booster to the opposite party.
The order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise complainant is also entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum on the total amount due to them from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of September 2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
Ext.A1 – Photocopy of Product display on website
Ext.A2 – Photocopy of Shipment details
Ext.A3 – Photocopy of e-mail communication dtd.15/7/20 with supplier for the supplied
product difference
Ext.A4 – Photocopy of legal notice dated 30/7/20 send to opposite party
Ext.A5 – Photocopy of legal notice delivery track status
Ext.A6 – Photocopy of online purchase payment receipt dated 2/7/2020
Ext.A7 – Photocopy of Bill/ Invoice issued by OP dated 2/7/2020
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
Nil
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost : Rs.2,500/- allowed as cost of this litigation
