DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 125 of 28.3.2016

                                      Decided on:        4.8.2016

Mohan Kumar S/o Vijay Singh, Student at Punjabi University, Patiala, Permanent residence Faridkot.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

Whaaky.com No.1-8-319/2, Patigadda road, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016.

                                                                   …………….Op

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM

                                       Smt.Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member                                     

ARGUED BY   

                                      Sh.Mohan Kumar, complainant in person.

                                       Opposite Party exparte.      

                                         ORDER

NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER

1. Complainant Mohan Kumar has brought this complaint against the opposite party ( hereinafter referred to as the OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) .The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. On 13^th January, the complainant through the website of the Op ordered two Samsung Guru Mobile Phones costing Rs.1299/- with the delivery charges of Rs.150/-. The complainant paid Rs.1499/- to the delivery man on 16.1.2016 at the time of delivery of the same. Lateron, the complainant noticed that one mobile and one charger were defective. The complainant sent an e-mail on the website on 19.1.2016.The Op told the complainant to send the product on its address at the own cost of the complainant . The complainant sent the product at the cost of Rs.200/-. The Op promised the complainant to return Rs.100/- by way of recharging the mobile. The Op received the product on 13^th February and told the complainant to send his bank account number for the transfer of the money. The complainant sent the same on the same date. On 17^th February the Op again asked the complainant to sent his bank account number. The complainant again sent the bank account number. No reply to the mails sent by the complainant were received by him. The maximum waiting period, as per the policy of the Op, for the refund was 15 days. The Op failed to pay any heed to the e-mails sent by the complainant for which the complainant is suffering from harassment and mental agony. Hence this complaint with a prayer for a direction to the Op for the refund of Rs.1449/- with Rs.200/- , compensation to the tune of  Rs.10,000/- and Rs.1000/-as costs of the litigation.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the Op through registered AD post. The Op failed to contest the case of the complainant and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
4. In the exparte evidence, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit, Ex.C1 copy of confirmation order, Ex.C2 copy of order dispatch, , Ex.C3 copy of delivery address of the complainant on the courier envelop, Ex.C4 copy of e-mail, Ex.C5 copy of Refund-Images received, awaiting self shipment, Ex.C6 copy of order No.S801139027, Ex.C7  copy of e-mail, Ex.C8 copy of e-mail, Ex.C9 copy of refund-self shipment received, Ex.C10, copy of Refund-self shipment received, Ex.C11 copy of e-mail about return of product, Ex.C12 copy of e-mail about return of product and closed the evidence.
5. The complainant failed to file the written arguments. We have heard the complainant in person and have also gone through the evidence on record.
6. The complainant purchased two Samsung Guru Mobile phones from the O.P. on 16.1.2016 for an amount of Rs.1299/- plus Rs.150/- as delivery charges vide Ex.C1, the delivery slip. After receiving the mobile phones, the complainant came to know that one of the mobile phone and one charger were defective. The complainant sent an e-mail to the O.P. on 19.1.2016 i.e. Ex.C4. O.P. told the complainant to return the product on its address at his own cost and the O.P. promised to return the amount of Rs.100/- by way of recharging the mobile phone. After receiving the product back, the OP told the complainant on 13^th February,2016 to send his bank account number for the transfer of the money in his account. The complainant sent the bank account number on the same day. On 17^th February, the Op again asked the complainant to send the Bank account number and the complainant again sent his bank account number.Thereafter, the complainant made various requests to the OP for the refund of the money ( Exs.C5 to C12 is the record of the e-mails sent by the complainant as well as the OP) but the OP failed to refund the same. The failure on the part of the Op amounted to deficiency in service on their part.
7. Today, during the course of arguments, the complainant told that the OP refunded the amount of Rs.1300/- in his account in the month of July,2016 i.e. after the filing of the complaint by the complainant. OP did not refund the delivery charges i.e. Rs.150/- and also the amount of Rs.200/- incurred by the complainant in sending back the product.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint with a direction to the OP to refund the remaining amount of Rs.350/- to the complainant. OP is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant, which is inclusive of cost of litigation. Order be complied by the OP within 45 days of the receipt of the certified copy of the order. The copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules.

                                      Neelam Gupta                      Neena Sandhu

                                        Member                               President