By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Case of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The complainant had bought a 14 Kt rose gold pendant with diamonds (Kinnari Mihika), from the first opposite party for Rs. 1,98,750.01/- through online on 14/03/2021 vide invoice NO. VHN/BKR/21/23789 which was taken delivery on 19/03/2021 by the complainant. The complainant purchased the article on persuasion of the second opposite party who introduced the first opposite party to the complainant and informed the complainant that the first opposite party company is well known to him and he assured that they are genuine traders. Believing the assurance of the second opposite party the complainant placed order by e commerce through their website for the said 14 Kt rose gold pendant with diamonds. The details of the purchased article was as follows:-
Style No. : PDO 7282
Diamond quality : SI 1
Diamond color : GH
Number of diamonds : 26
Shape cut : Round brilliant
Gold weight : 1.41 grams.
2. The first opposite party issued to the complainant a” certificate of authenticity “in this regard.
3. After a few months use it is felt to the complainant slight changes in its color, total appearance etc., hence the complainant had got the pendant examined by experts and it is informed that the said pendant is manufactured using with “American fancy diamond” which is only lower in quality and the price of such product is below Rs. 18,000/- only.
4. The complainant contacted the opposite parties and informed the matter and requested refund of the cash. Though the opposite parties informed the complainant their willingness to consider it, no refund was made to the complainant so far. The complainant again contacted the opposite parties in this regard many time but all was in vain.
5. The complainant alleged that the opposite parties were cheating the complainant by selling to him a fancy pendant which is only spurious and of lesser price instead of the original 14 Kt rose gold pendant with the diamonds with superior quality.
6. The complainant alleged the act of opposite parties as unfair trade practice and unethical. It is submitted the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony and other physical hardship due to the action of the opposite parties.
7. The complainant prayed direction to opposite parties for refund of Rs. 1,987,50.01 towards the price of the pendant and to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- and cost of Rs.15,000/-.
8. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice the second opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The first opposite party did not appear and so the first opposite party set exparte.
9. The second opposite party vehemently opposed the averments and allegations in the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint along with cost of the proceedings.
10. The second opposite party submitted that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the second opposite party. The dispute is between the complainant and the first opposite party regarding the business transaction between the parties. The second opposite party submitted that he also like complainant has got business transaction with the first opposite party and as a result the income out of business was credited in to the account of the second opposite party.
11. The opposite party submitted that he never instigated the complainant to be a member in direct selling chain business of the first opposite party. On the other hand the complainant approached the second opposite party and thereby enrolled as member in the chain of the first opposite party. The complainant subscribed the membership with the expectation of getting profit out of the business and thereby he can earned more benefits. As per the scheme a member while joining in to the scheme has to purchase article and as part of the same the complainant remitted some amount as stated in the complaint. The contention of the complainant that he purchased article worth Rs.1, 98,750/- is not correct but it include the primary contribution who enrolled in the business scheme. It is necessary to purchase some products from the first opposite party and as part of the same the complainant purchased the disputed product from the first opposite party. The second opposite party admitted that the complainant remitted some amount to enroll in the business transaction. At the same time the second opposite party submitted that he never sold any article to the complainant. The second opposite party have no role in the sales transactions of the first opposite party.
12. The second opposite party submitted that he never instigated the complainant that the diamond obtained by the complainant is with high quality and thereby believing the same the complainant placed order are not correct and so the second opposite party denied. The second opposite party never advised the complainant to purchase any article and to be party of the chain business.
13. The second opposite party submitted that they are not aware whether the complainant demanded the money from the first opposite party. It is submitted the relationship of second opposite party and the complainant with the first opposite party is same and both of them are equal right over the first opposite party. The second opposite party have no objection for releasing or refunding the amount to the complainant. The second opposite party never cheated the complainant. There is no unfair trade practice from the part of second opposite party. The second opposite party acted like the complainant and the second opposite party is an unnecessary party in the proceedings.
14. The second opposite party further submitted that the complainant enrolled his own wife and other people in the scheme of the first opposite party and thereby the complainant was obtained share of profit from the first opposite party. The complainant enrolled in the business chain scheme of the first opposite party clearly understanding the terms and conditions. The complainant enrolled many persons in the scheme and obtained profit share and thereafter raising a complaint like this is baseless and he is not entitled for any sort of relief. The complainant is misusing the authority and it is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and the Commission have no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.
15. The business distribution ID number is 197808 and Mr. Jabsheer S/o Koyakutty joined in the scheme under complainant with distribution ID No. IN 944141. Smt. Poozhikunnath Latha enrolled with ID No. IN 121635.Smt Sruthi with ID IN628193 was enrolled under his wife Latha. The complainant enrolled in this scheme on 19/02/2021. Latha Poozhikunnath is the wife of the complainant. It is specifically submitted that any new enrollment in to the scheme is possible only through purchasing article from the first opposite party. The complaint account reveals that he received profit share from the business with the first opposite party. The complainant wilfully hiding the facts. Hence opposite party submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and to be dismissed with cost to the second opposite party.
16. The complainant and the second opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents of the complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A7. The documents of the opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B7. Ext. A1 is copy of tax invoice dated 14/03/2021. Ext. A2 is copy of account statement of the complainant maintained with SBI from 01/02/2021 to 28/02/2021. Ext.A3 is copy of part A delivery slip entered by Vihaan Direct Selling (India) Private Limited. Ext.A4 is photocopy of certificate of authenticity. Ext. A5 is certificate of authenticity DHC international Gem lab and institute. Ext. A6 is copy of test report cum valuation statement dated 04/03/2024 issued by Jewel palace, golden diamond Valanchery. Ext. A7 is certificate of authenticity issued from Manager DHC gen lab and institute private limited dated 27/08/2024. Ext. B1 is copy of Q net distribution application form dated 19/02/2021. Ext. B2 is copy of i Coupon independent representative receipt dated 19/02/2021. Ext. B3 is Q net distributor application form dated 28/05/2021. Ext. B4 is Q net distributor application form dated 18/06/2021. Ext. B5 is copy of settlement advice dated 22/08/2022. Ext. B6 is copy of balance summary in the name of complainant IR ID No. IN197808. Ext. B7 is pen drive regarding conversation between the wife of the complainant and Mr. Jabsheer.
17. Heard complainant and the second opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether the complaint is maintainable?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Relief and cost?
18. Point No.1, 2&3
The case of the complainant is that he bought 14 Kt rose gold pendant with diamonds from the first opposite party for Rs .1,98,750.01/- through online, which was taken delivery on 19/03/2021. The complainant submitted that he purchased the product on persuasion of the second opposite party. Accordingly he purchased the product in dispute and now the complaint is that after few months use it is felt to the complainant slight changes in its color, total appearance etc., hence the complainant had got examined the article through experts and it was found it is very low quality product and the price of such product is below Rs. 18,000/- only. Though the complainant contacted the opposite parties to refund but the opposite parties did not heed the request of the complainant. Hence prayed refund the cost of Rs. 1, 98,750.01/- towards the product pendant price. The complainant also prayed compensation of Rs.75, 000/- and cost of Rs. 50,000/-. The complainant produced Ext. A1 to A7 to prove his case.
19. The first opposite party remained exparte in the mater but the second opposite party filed a detailed version and produced documents Ext. B1 to B7. The second opposite party opposed the complaint stating that the complaint is not maintainable against the second opposite party and the dispute is in between complainant and the first opposite party with respect to the business transaction. It is further submitted that the opposite party and the complainant was part of the business of the first opposite party and as per the business policy of the first opposite party the income was credited in to the account of the complainant and the second opposite party. It is further submitted that the second opposite party specifically denied that he motivated the complainant to be part of the business. The opposite party further submitted that the amount of Rs. 1, 98,750/- was paid not only for the purchase of the product but it includes the contribution to become part of the business. It is submitted that the second opposite party never sold any product to the complainant. It is also submitted the second opposite party is not aware about the quality of the disputed product and the complaint raised by the complainant before the first opposite party.
20. The second opposite party submitted that the entire transaction in between the complainant and the opposite parties were in the nature of business and the dispute in respect of business transaction cannot be considered before the consumer disputes redressal Commission. There was no deficncy in service or unfair trade practice in the transaction. At the time of subscribing the business scheme the parties are very well informed the terms and conditions of the business. The opposite party further submitted the details of other business partners in the scheme introduced by the complainant himself, i.e., his wife and his close friends. So there is no merit at all in the submission of the complainant.
21. The commission have gone through the averments and documents of the parties. The opposite party produced Ext.B1 to B7 in which B7 is a pen drive which reveals the relation of complainant and the opposite parties. The complainant has admitted he became part of the business through the second opposite party. Ext. B1 is the distribution application form signed and delivered by the complainant dated 19/02/2021. The distribution application form contains terms and conditions of the business. One of the clause in the distributor application form is that “1. The products and business model of Q net have been presented to me in full details and all of my questions were answered to my satisfaction”. So it is definite that the complainant was part of business transaction who knows the terms and conditions of the business. Ext. B2 is copy of icoupon independent representative receipt dated 19/02/2021 and the total bill amount shown as Rs. 1,98, 750/-. The document further reveals payment details of 50 items and thereby the total amount paid as Rs. 1, 98,750/-. Ext. B2 document further reveals purchase done by Latha Poozhikunnath dated 18/06/2021 who is non-other than the wife of the complainant. Ext. B3 is Q net distributor application form in the name of Jabsheer who appears referred by Mr. Anilkumar M, the complainant himself. Ext. B4 is Q net distributor application form in respect of Latha poozhikunnath dated 18/16/2021 who is non-other than the wife of the complainant. So these documents produced by opposite party substantiate that the complainant along with his wife was part of Q net marketing business. Though the complainant submitted the product purchased by the complainant as per Ext. A1 worth Rs. 1, 98,750/- cannot be treated as the value of the Kinnari Mihika described in the Ext. A1 document. The total cost as per Ext. A1 and Ext. B2 is same as Rs. 1, 98,750/-. It is also relevant that Ext. A1 and Ext. B2 are dated 19/02/2021. The complainant has not stated he purchased product worth Rs. 1, 98,750/- including 50 items and the so called Kinnari Mihika worth Rs. 1, 98,750/-on the same day. So the claim of the complainant that he purchased the disputed 14 Kt rose gold pendant with diamonds (Kinnari Mihika) for Rs. 1, 98,750/- cannot be accepted as such. The complainant submitted that after a few months of use the ornament felt slight changes in its color, total appearance etc. and thereby got it examined by experts. But the complainant approached this Commission after a long span of time. It appears the transaction in this complainant is part of online chain marketing which cannot be considered as a consumer dispute. In this complainant from the documents produced by the parties it can be concluded that the transaction was with a nature of business transaction and part of a business network. There is no averment that the complainant purchased this product from the opposite party for his personal use.
22. In the light of above facts and circumstances we do not find element of consumer dispute in the transaction between the complainant and opposite parties and so this complaint cannot be treated as a consumer dispute. Hence due to want of satisfactory evidence on the side of complainant, the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 27th day of September, 2024.
Mohandasan. K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A7
Ext.A1: Copy of tax invoice dated 14/03/2021.
Ext.A2: Copy of account statement of the complainant maintained with SBI from
01/02/2021 to 28/02/2021.
Ext A3: Copy of part A slip entered by Vihaan Direct Selling (India) Private Limited.
Ext A4: Photocopy of certificate of authenticity.
Ext A5: Certificate of authenticity DHC international Gem lab and institute.
Ext.A6: Copy of test report cum valuation statement dated 04/03/2024 issued by Jewel
palace, golden diamond Valachery.
Ext.A7: Certificate of authenticity issued from Manager DHC gen lab and institute
private limited dated 27/08/2024.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B7
Ext.B1: Copy of Q net distribution application form dated 19/02/2021.
Ext.B2: Copy of I coupon independent representative receipt dated 19/02/2021.
Ext.B3: Q net distributor application form dated 28/05/2021.
Ext.B4: Net distributor application form dated 18/06/2021.
Ext.B5: Copy of settlement advice dated 22/08/2022.
Ext.B6: Copy of balance summary in the name of complainant IR ID No. IN197808.
Ext.B7: Pen drive regarding conversion between the wife of the complainant and Mr.
Jamsheer.
Mohandasan. K, President
Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
