DATE OF DISPOSAL: 20.05.2024
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
The complainant placed an order a HP-Printer on 25.08.2022 vide Model No.: HP-DeskJet 2723 (All-in-One) – Printer, Scanner and Copier for his Home from Opposite party no.1. The product was packed by op. party no.2. The complainant paid Rs.5499/- including IGST 18% to the delivery agent of the Op. Party no.1 for the said product. The ordered product box was delivered to the complainant on 27.08.2012. when opened the said box, the complainant found a damaged printer of model of EPSON company, and which was a wrong product. The complainant represented about it to the opposite party no.1 on 28.08.2022 and requested to refund amount by return of the product. The complainant uploaded the pictures of damaged and wrong item with the op no.1. Accordingly, the op. no.1 received back the said damaged and wrong item on 29.08.2022 through their Courier agent. But the op no.1 did not refund the amount to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant issued an email to the Op no.1 on 18.10.2022 and in reply, the op no.1 stated that, “we cannot issue a refund for this order until we receive the correct item. Please return the correct item to us.” Subsequently, the op no.1 refused to refund the money which was paid by the complainant on delivery of the product. For such activities, the complainant sought following reliefs –
- Direct the op no.1 to refund the amount of Rs.5499/- to the complainant with 15% interest there on from the date of dues to till final payment.
- Direct the op no.1 to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.
- Direct the op no.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges and legal cost occurred.
- Direct such other order deems fit in the interest of justice.
3. Admitting the complaint, the Commission issued notice to both the Opposite Parties. Duly acknowledging the notice, the op.no.1 appeared through its Advocate but did not choose to file any written version. Similarly, the op no.2 neither appeared nor filed any written version. On the basis of the Memo of the complainant, the opposite parties were declared as Exparte by the Commission on 23.06.2023 and 16.12.2023 respectively. Subsequently, the complainant appeared through Advocates on 16.01.2024.
4. On the date of hearing, the Commission heard from the Ld. Counsel of the Complainant. The Commission perused the Complaint, evidence on affidavit, written argument and documents available in the case record.
On analyzing the evidences adduced by the Complainant, it reveals that, the complainant has placed the order on e-commerce portal of op no.1 after selecting and confirming the product of op no.2. As per online consent between both the parties, the opposite parties agreed to supply the HP-Deskjet 2723 printer on Payment on delivery basis for Rs.5499/- on 25.08.2022 to the complainant. it is also apparent from the record that, the op no.1 did not send any pictures of the confirmed product while packaging for shipping to the complainant’s address and/or sent any video-graph while packaging. Secondly, the op no.1 also not objected while its courier partner picked up the product from the complainant on 29.08.2022 on return requests. Thirdly, the op no.1 remained silence till the complainant claimed for refund of his money by email.
It is manifest from the case record, that the above act of the op. party no.1 is tantamount to deficiency in services and unfair trade practice. In such nexus, the op. party no.2 is having hands in glove with op. party no.1. Hence the op. party no.2 is having vicarious liability with op party no.1 to refund the cost of the product-printer, payment of compensation and litigation cost in accordance to the Consumer Protection (e-commerce) Rules, 2020.
So far as the compensation and cost of the case is concerned, the Commission is convinced that the complainant has repeatedly requested to O.P no.1 for solve of the problem of the complainant but the O.P no.1 failed to take any effective steps to short out the problem of the complainant for which the complainant has suffered financially, physically and mentally for which he is to be compensated. Under the above facts and circumstances, in our considered view, it will be just and proper to award compensation as well as litigation cost in favour of the complainant.
Considering the above factual aspects and statute (supra), the Commission allowed the complaint against the opposite parties. The opposite parties, who are jointly and severally liable, directed to refund the cost of the printer of Rs.5499/- together with compensation of Rs.12,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order.
In the event of non-compliance of the above order by the opposite parties, the entire dues shall carry interest @ 12%p.a from the date of filling of the case i.e., Dated:02.11.2022 till the actual date of realization is made by the opposite parties and the complainant is at liberty to realize said entire dues with interest as above from the opposite parties in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 20.05.2024
