BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Pawaninder Jaswal s/o Sh.Prem Chand Jaswal, R/o H.No.948 (Top Floor), Sector 41-A, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1]  Times Internet Ltd., C/o Times of India Building, Top Floor, 10 Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002.

2]  Teknix, 416, Daulate Bhawan, Opp. Bhangwadi, Kalbadevi, Mumbai-40002.

3]  Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. SCO 142-144, Basement, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017.

                      ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Dalip Mahajan, Counsel for the Complainant.

           OP No.1 & 2 already ex-parte.

Sh.Kapil Nagpal, Authorized Representative of OP No.3.    

PER P.D. GOEL, PRESIDENT

         The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging therein that on 30.12.2010, he placed the order with OP No.1 to supply a ‘Sony Cybershot W3210 14MP Digital Camera with 4GB Card & Carry Case’ and paid Rs.7650/- through ICICI Bank Credit card. The OP No.1 delivered the said camera to the complainant through OP No.2 on 6.1.2011 vide Invoice No.405, dated 31.12.2010. It is alleged that on receiving the said camera, the complainant found that the LCD screen of the camera was defective. The Camera was sent back to OP No.2 through OP No.3 on 8.1.2011 vide Airway Bill No.190127816. The OP NO.1 was informed that the product was delivered on 15.1.2011 to OP NO.2. It is further alleged that OP NO.1 sent an E-mail on 21.1.2011 that they have received the camera and assured to do the needful within 8-10 days. But the complainant has not received back the camera inspite of various reminder, E-mails and calls. Hence, this complaint.

[2]      OP No.1 & 2 did not turn up despite service and hence suffered ex-parte.

[3]      OP No.3 appeared and filed reply. In their reply, OP No.3 has pleaded that the complainant has no case against it nor there is any deficiency in service on its part. In these circumstances, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against it. 

[4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

[5]      We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and authorized representative of OP No.3 and have also perused the record.

[6]      The averments made in the complaint stands corroborated from the affidavit of             the complainant, as well as the Annexures C-1 to C-4. Annexure C-1 is the copy of the e-mail dated 30/12/2010, confirming the order placed by the Complainant for one Sony Cybershot W320 14MP Digital Camera with 4GB Card and Carry Case. From this document, it is proved that the Camera in question was ordered and purchased by the complainant by paying an amount of Rs.7650/- vide Order No. 112786360, from OP-1, which is having Online Shopping Portal vide internet website http://shopping.indiatimes.com. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the Invoice No. 405, dated 31/12/2010 of OP No.2, through whom the OP No.1 delivered the aforesaid camera to the Complainant on 06/01/2011. Annexure C-3 is the copy of Airway Bill No. 190127816, dated 08/01/2011, while Annexure C-4 is the copy of e-mail dated 21/01/2011 sent by the OP No.1 to Complainant.

[7]      From these documents, it is apparent that the Camera with defective LCD Screen was sent back by the Complainant to OP No.2 through OP No.3 on 08/01/2011 and the OP No.1 acknowledged the receipt of the same, with an assurance to replace the defective Camera, within next 8-10 working days. Since the Complainant did not receive back his camera, till date, despite various reminders e-mails and calls, in our considered opinion, this amounts to gross deficiency in service on the part of OP Nos.1 & 2. Otherwise also, the allegations made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted and un-controverted.

[8]      The OPs No.1 & 2 were served, but they did not care to contest the claim of the Complainant, as such, it can be concluded without any hesitation that either these OPs admit the claim of the Complainant or they have nothing to say in the matter. More so, the evidence led by the Complainant goes unrebutted.

[9]      Since Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service, much less any unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.3. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no case is made out against OP No.3 and the complaint qua OP No.3 is dismissed. 

[10]     As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and the OP Nos.1 & 2 are directed to deliver the camera in question, free from any defect, to the Complainant, along with compensation of Rs.2000/- for physical harassment & mental agony and litigation expenses amounting to Rs.1000/-, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

[11]     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.