AKASH DEEP filed a consumer case on 15 Sep 2017 against TRADER.COM in the East Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/431/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 11 Oct 2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
C.C. NO. 431/14
Shri Akashdeep Grover
House No. D-202
C.R. Raod, Laxmi Nagar
Delhi – 110 092 ….Complainants
Vs.
Eminence Buiilding, 4th Floor
Plot No. 44, Institutional Area
Sector-32, Gurgaon
Haryana – 122 001
Pearls Building, Plot No. 51
Sectoor-32, Institutional Area
Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 001
Plot No. 44, Institutional Area
Sector-32, Gurgaon
Haryana – 122 001 …Opponent
Date of Institution: 07.05.2014
Judgment Reserved on: 15.09.2017
Judgment Passed on: 18.09.2017
CORUM:
Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)
Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)
JUDGEMENT
This complaint has been filed by Shri Akashdeep Grover against Tradus.com (OP-1), IBIBO Group (OP-2) and Management – Tradus.com (OP-3), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The facts in brief are that the complainant ordered two items, one ‘Koutons Formal Assorted Blazer’ for Men with Sub-order ID 11692666_01 on December 06, 2013 having value Rs. 1,046 (including delivery charges) and Go Untucked Premium Hooded Sweatshirt (Pack of 2) with Sub-order ID 11710083_01 on December 08, 2013 having value Rs. 876/- from OP. The complainant was assured by OP to provide the item of ordered brand and quality as shown on their site. The delivery of sub-order ID 11692666_01 was made on 07.12.2013. The item delivered was not of ‘Koutons’ as per the commitment of OP, but of any other brand and that too in a non-wearable condition i.e. defective.
The complainant tried to contact the supplier through the call arranged by site of OP. The phone was not picked by supplier even after attempting for more than 5 times. The complainant sent numerous mails from 14.12.2013 to 13.03.2014 demanding claim regarding the discrepancy in service/order, but no positive response was given by them.
He has further stated that they never offered to replace the good, instead made the refund of money. It has been stated that they have been misleading the consumer by displaying wrong products online. The complainant sent a legal notice of dated 18.03.2014 which has been replied by them on 21.04.2014. Thus, the complainant have prayed for expenses such as legal fee Rs. 5,000/-; legal notice fee Rs. 4,000/- and other expenses Rs. 3,500/-, making a total of Rs. 12,500/-.
3. In the WS, filed on behalf of Tradus.com (OP-1), IBIBO Group (OP-2) and Management – Tradus.com (OP-3), they have stated that Tradus.com (OP-1) was not a separate legal entity and was a website. They provide terms and conditions of their website and under the ‘Refund’, company reserves the right to accept or reject requests for order cancellations for any reason. As part of usual business practice, if they receive a cancellation notice and the order has not been processed/approved by them, they shall cancel the order and refund the entire amount. They can be held responsible only towards the services which were being rendered by them. No deficiency has been stated by the complainant towards them.
They have further stated that sub-order ID 11710083_01 was got cancelled and a refund against the same was initiated by the complainant on 23.12.2013 and was refunded by OP-1 on 24.12.2013. The refund of Rs. 876/- was made to the complainant without any delay. The second sub-order ID 11692666_01 placed by the complainant was a cash on delivery order. The complainant did not like the product and returned the same and initiated the refund for Rs. 1,046/- on 17.12.2013. The complainant, according to the internal report received by the Finance Department of OP-1, received the refund on 27.12.2013. Other contents of the complaint have also been denied.
4. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OPs, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.
5. In support of its complaint, complainant have examined himself. He has deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the complaint. He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of sub-order ID 11692666_01 (Ex. CW1/A), copy of sub-order ID 11710083_01 (Ex.CW1/B), snapshots of the items delivered (Ex.CW1/C, C1 & C2), copy of emails (Ex.CW1/D, D1 to D20), copy of legal notice (Ex.CW1/E) and copy of postal receipts and EMS tracking results (Ex.CW1/F, F1 & F2).
In defence, OPs have examined Shri Akshat Sulalit, working with OP-2, who have deposed on affidavit and have narrated the facts stated in the WS. He has also got exhibited documents such as Board Resolution dated 05.08.2015 (Ex.OP/1) and written statement (Ex.OP/2).
6. We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP as the complainant did not appear to argue and have perused the material placed on record. It has been argued on behalf of OP that they have refunded the amount of Rs. 876/- and Rs. 1,046/-, for which they have placed the refund voucher. From the evidence on record, it is evident that the complainant was refunded the amount of Rs. 876/- for the first order on 24.12.2013 and Rs. 1,046/- for the second order on 27.12.2013. When the complainant have got the amount refunded on getting the order cancelled and filed the present complaint on 07.05.2014, he no more was a consumer, therefore, his complaint deserved its dismissal and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.
Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(DR. P.N. TIWARI) (SUKHDEV SINGH)
Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.