DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII(SW)

[GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI]

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SHAKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO. CC/618/2016

                                                               Date of Institution  : 24.01.2017

  Order reserved on  : 28.03.2023

            Date of Order  :

In the matter of:

Rishikesh Kumar,

S/o Triveni Singh,

R/o H.No H-4, DESU Street,

Mahipal Extn,

New Delhi-110037.                                        ….                Complainant

VERSUS

1.True Colours Group,

(Owner/Director),

True Colours Grop, 

50, Somakanji Complex,

Khatodara, Surat, Gujrat-395002... Opposite Party 1

2.Mr. Sagar Multani

(Salesman),

True Colours Group,

50, Somakanji Wadi,

B/H Savera Complex,

Khatodara, Surat,

Gujrat – 395002.….Opposite Party 2

ORDER

(By SH. SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, PRESIDENT)

1. The complainant has filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations that he is running his business in the name of Blues & Jacks Overseas and deals in supplying of industrial digital printer parts. He has conversation through watsapp/mobile browser with OP-2 and placed order for supply of DX-5 model F1-18600 uncoded print head in X Series for his own/office use which is his livelihood for a sum of Rs. 1,34,000/-. He has transferred the said amount on the same day in account No. 2 maintained in IDBI Bank in the name of Sanjay Desai. On 15.06.2016, he has received the good and found that respondent No 1 has supplied DX 5 model X-186000 double coded in place on uncoded goods of much lesser amount. He has immediately informed to OP-2 but no satisfactorily reply was given by OP-2.  The email dated 13.3.2013 of OP-1 clearly shows that complainant should not hesitate to contact OP-1 in case of any physical damage to the goods. He has informed OP-1 regarding deficiency in service but in vain.  On 20.06.2016 he has asked the opposite parties to return the goods through mobile browser wattsapp chats but opposite parties refused to take back the goods. He kept on requesting the opposite parties for the return of the goods but with no result.  A legal notice dated 02.09.2016 was sent to the opposite parties to replace the goods or to repay the money but in vain.  There is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in supplying the goods. Hence, this complaint.

2. The notice of the complaint was given to opposite parities.  The opposite parties were duly served but they did not put their appearance to contest the complaint. On 30.03.2017, the opposite parties were proceeded Ex-parties.

3. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in Ex-parte evidence and corroborated the version as set out in the beginning while briefing the facts and relied upon the documents.

4. The complainant has filed the written submissions but did not turn up to address the oral submissions, as a result on 28.03.2023, the case was reserved for Orders.

5. The affidavit of the complainant shows that on 13.06.2016, he has wattapp mobile browser chat with OP-2 and ordered to supply DX-5 model F18600 uncoded print heads for his own/office use for a sum of Rs 1,34,000/- and said amount was deposited with the bank account of OP-2 which is clear from Ex CW1/A. The exhibit is not put on the documents but receipt dt 13.6.2016 is on the record. The amount was received by OP-2. The opposite parties have supplied coded print heads instead of uncoded which is even clear from the mobile browser chat Ex CW1/C.  The exhibit is not put in this document though same is on the record.

6. The legal notice dt 02.09.2016 Ex CW1/D, though not put on the documents, was issued to the opposite parties either to replace the goods or to refund the amount but in vain.

7. The complainant has placed the order for uncoded goods but coded goods are being supplied.  This fact was brought to the notice of the opposite parties.  The complainant has requested the opposite parties either to replace the goods or refund the price but in vain.

8. There is nothing on the record that goods were ordered for business purposes. It is clear from the material on record coded goods instead of uncoded goods have been supplied. The goods have not been replaced despite the request by the complainant through chats on mobile browser or even after the issuance of legal notice. The evidence led by the complainant has gone unrebutted as opposite parties have not come forward controvert the allegations of the complainant. There is nothing to view the evidence led by the complainant with the aid of spectacles. There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. The evidence led by the complainant is relied upon. 

`

9. The complaint of the complainant is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to refund the amount of the goods i.e Rs 1,34,000/- as it will of no use for direction to replace the goods because the complainant has purchased the same in 2016 and same might not be useful for him in 2023 due to change in technology.  The compensation of Rs 20,000/- is awarded to mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. The opposite parties shall comply with the Order within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which complainant is entitled for interest @ 8% per annum. The complainant shall return the good on the receipt of amount from the opposite parties.

• Copy of this Order be supplied to parties free of cost.

• File is consigned to record room thereafter.

• Announced in the open court.