Haryana

Sonipat

CC/420/2015

Kusum D/o Hoshiyar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director Shop CJ - Opp.Party(s)

Rajni Srivastav

23 May 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                                Complaint No.420 of 2015

                                Instituted on:13.11.2015                                        Date of order:23.05.2016

 

 

Kusum d/o Hoshiar Singh r/o H.No.101, VPO Bakner, near Bank Wali Gali, Narela, Delhi-40. At present resident of Quarter no.H-2, Post office & Telecom Colony, near Geeta Bhawan Chowk, Sonepat.

 

..Complainant.

 

                        VERSUS

 

The Managing Director, Shop CJ @ Star CJ, Head Office 6^th Floor, Star CJ Plaza, DR DB Marg, Grant Road, East Mumbai-Maharashtra-400007.

                                             ..Respondent.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Mrs. Rajni Srivastav Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Ashok Kumar  Adv. for respondent.

 

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

       

 

O R D E R

 

                        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that on 29.9.2015, she had ordered for purchasing 4 Amazing Enakhi Necklace sets for Rs.999/- vide order no.20150929068654 under ID NO.201509169 passward no.7587 and it was assured by the respondent to the said items within two days.  On 3.10.2015, the complainant made a telephonic calls to the respondent that till date, she has not received the said items, upon which, the respondent said that the complainant has received wrong information and the delivery of the said necklace set will be given to her within a period of 7 days.  On 8.10.2015, the complainant made a complaint to the respondent and the respondent said that their service request team will contact, but it was the false assurance.  On 15.10.2015, the complainant contacted the respondent regarding the delivery of the said necklace sets, but the respondent and his associates did not give any satisfactory reply and due to this, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment as the complainant had to gift the said items to her some nearest friend.  The complainant served the respondent with a legal notice on 23.10.2015 but the said legal notice has also not brought any fruitful result and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, she has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.         In reply, the respondent has submitted that on 29.9.2015 the complainant had placed an order with M/s Radhey Jewellers for purchase of one Apsara Collection by Enakshi Imitation Jewellery being 4 necklace sets of Rs.999/- and opted a cash on delivery mode for payment.  As per records available with the customer care, the said product was to be delivered to the complainant at the address given by the complainant.  On 1.10.2015, the said product was handed over by M/s Radhey Jewellers to their delivery service provider, M/s Ecom Express for delivery to the complainant. On 4.10.2015 and 8.10.2015, a complaint about non-delivery of product was received by the call centre and her complaint was forwarded to M/s Radhey Jewellers for necessary action.    As per the information received, several attempts were made to deliver the product by the M/s Radhey Jewellers and delivery service provider.  Neither the complainant was contactable nor her address was located, so the product was returned back to the vendor. No financial loss, harassment or mental agony has been suffered by the complainant.  All the grievances of the complainant are either related to M/s Radhey Jewellers who agreed to sell the product or M/s Ecom Express who was responsible for delivery of the product in time.  The respondent cannot be held liable for any delay.  The present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties since M/s Radhye Jewellers and M/s Ecom Express has not been impleaded as a party to the present complaint and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely. We have also perused the written arguments submitted by the ld. Counsel for the respondent, very carefully and minutely.

4.         In the present complaint, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant has placed an order for purchasing 4 Amazing Enakhi Necklace sets for Rs.999/- vide order no.20150929068654 under ID NO.20150916.  As per the complainant, the said items have not been delivered to her at any point of time by the respondent despite the fact that she has made so many complaints to the respondent and even the legal notice was also sent to the respondent.  The respondent has admitted that the payment was to be made by the complainant on cash on delivery basis.  It is submitted by the ld. Counsel for the complainant that the complainant’s intention was very fair and honest for purchasing the said items and that’s she made so many complaints to the respondent and even legal notice was also issued to the respondent.

           On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that on 29.9.2015 the complainant had placed an order with M/s Radhey Jewellers for purchase of one Apsara Collection by Enakshi Imitation Jewellery being 4 necklace sets of Rs.999/- and opted a cash on delivery mode for payment.  As per records available with the customer care, the said product was to be delivered to the complainant at the address given by the complainant.  On 1.10.2015, the said product was handed over by M/s Radhey Jewellers to their delivery service provider, M/s Ecom Express for delivery to the complainant. On 4.10.2015 and 8.10.2015, a complaint about non-delivery of product was received by the call centre and her complaint was forwarded to M/s Radhey Jewellers for necessary action.    As per the information received, several attempts were made to deliver the product by the M/s Radhey Jewellers and delivery service provider.  Neither the complainant was contactable nor her address was located, so the product was returned back to the vendor. No financial loss, harassment or mental agony has been suffered by the complainant.  All the grievances of the complainant are either related to M/s Radhey Jewellers who agreed to sell the product or M/s Ecom Express who was responsible for delivery of the product in time.  The respondent cannot be held liable for any delay.

 

          In our view, the plea of the respondent that  all the grievances of the complainant are either related to M/s Radhey Jewellers who agreed to sell the product or M/s Ecom Express who was responsible for delivery of the product in time and the respondent cannot be held liable for any delay, is not tenable in the eyes of law because the complainant has booked his article with the respondent and it was the duty of the respondent to provide the said article to the complainant either by taking it from any corner.  The complainant has no concern with M/s Radhey Jewellers. If there is any tie-up in between the respondent and M/s Radhey Jewellers, the complainant has no concern with the same. 

 

         We find force in the contentions raised by the ld. Counsel for the complainant that the complainant’s intention was very fair and honest for purchasing the said items and that’s she made so many complaints to the respondent and even legal notice was also issued to the respondent.  In our view, non-delivery of the article by the respondent to the complainant amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and the complainant has been able to prove her case against the respondent.  The complainant by way present complaint has claimed Rs.50,000/-, which in our view is on a very higher side.  However, in our view,  Rs.five thousand would be an adequate compensation to be granted to the complainant from the respondent.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.five thousand for rendering deficient services, harassment.  The respondent is further directed to pay another sum of Rs.two thousand to the complainant under the head of litigation expenses.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

(Prabha Wati Member)            (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.                       DCDRF, Sonepat.

Announced:  23.05.2016