IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2023
Present: Smt.Bindhu.R, President(In-Charge)
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No. 48/2023 (Filed on 22/02/2023)
Complainant : Ibin Abraham Varghese ,
Madappattu Naduvilayil Muriyil House,
Poothakkuzhy P.O,
Pampady, Kottayam - 686 521.
Vs.
Opposite party : VPLAK India (P) Limited,
House No.1678, Sec-45,
Gurugram,
Gurgaon – 122 001,
Haryana.
O R D E R
SRI.K.M. ANTO, MEMBER
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows. The complainant had ordered a Digital Mixer (Behringer XR 18) from the opposite party online shopping company on payment of Rs 73,894/- on 17/01/2023. The complainant received a confirmation mail from the opposite party. After two days when the complainant contacted the customer care of the opposite party they informed that the product is out of stock and enquired whether the complainant prefer to make an order for any other product.
The complainant demanded the refund of the amount paid, and the opposite party informed that they would give a mail for sending account details and on getting the reply to this mail the refund will be processed. The complainant received the refund request mail on 23/01/2023 and the complainant updated the account details and UPI id through the mail. It was also stated in the mail that the refund amount will be reflected in 7-8 days.
When the opposite party was contacted after two days they said that it would take 15 days and the refund is under processing. On 6th February it was 15 days, and when contacted the opposite party they asked to wait for another three days. After three days when the complainant contacted the opposite party the call was transferred to one of their seniors and that person informed that the order is under process and they have arranged the product. The complainant informed the opposite party that he had already brought the product from another site and the product is not needed and to give the refund. The opposite party then forced the complainant to buy another product from their company worth the same amount. The complainant refused the same and asked for the refund. The staff promised to initiate the refund. But till date the refund is not received.
This complaint is filed for getting the refund of Rs.73,894/- along with a compensation of Rs 30,000/- and cost for the litigation.
On admission of the complaint copy of the complaint was forwarded to the opposite party. The opposite party neither cared to appear before the Commission nor to file their version. The opposite party was set exparte.
The complainant failed to appear before the Commission or to adduce any evidence even after issuing notice from the Commission. The documents filed along with the complaint were marked as Exhibits A1 and A2.
On the basis of the complaint and evidence on record we would like to consider the following points.
(1) Whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party ?
(2) If so what are the reliefs and costs?
POINT :-
On going through the complaint and evidence on record it is clear that the complainant had given order for a Digital Mixer (Behringer XR 18) from the opposite party on 17/01/2023 for an amount of Rs 73,894/-. Ext A2 is the email received from the opposite party for sharing the order id, amount and UPI id or bank details for the refund. The complainant had shared the order id No.1754449911, Refund amount Rs 73,894.94, UPI id and bank account details via reply e-mail.
Even though the complainant alleged that the refund was not received, he failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate this allegation. The complainant failed to produce the statement of account shared with the opposite party to prove that the opposite party had not refunded the amount so far. On going through the available evidence we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party with cogent evidence. The complaint is liable to be dismissed,
The complaint dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of September, 2023
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
Smt.Bindhu.R, President(In Charge) Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Copy of Screenshot of Transaction Invoice
for Rs.73894.94
A2 - Copy of E-mail dated 23/01/2023 received
from the opposite party for sharing the order ID,
amount and UPI ID or bank details for refund
Exhibits from the side of Opposite Party :
Nil
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
