Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/140/2018

Suraj Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Xpressbees - Opp.Party(s)

in person

17 Aug 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.    140 of 2018

                                                DATE OF INSTITUTION: -              05.10.2018

                                                            DATE OF ORDER: -                         17.08.2023

 

Suraj Chand Aggarwal son of Shri Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, resident Manan Panna, Ward No. 24, House No.34/39, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

 

    ……………Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

1. Manager, xpressbees courier office, near Santoshi mata nursery, Tosham Flyover Opp DHBVN City Office Bhiwani.
2. Manager, Entice jeans & company, G-24, Subhash nagar shopping center, Jaipur-302016.
3. Manager, paytm office, F-1, Udhyog Marg F Block, Sector 6, Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201301.

………….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

 

BEFORE:      Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member

Sh. D.M. Yadav, Member

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

          Sh. Bhuvnesh Makhija, Advocate for OP no. 3.

          OP no. 1 & 2 exparte.

 

ORDER:-

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member:

 

1.                     Brief facts of the case, as per complainant are that the complainant ordered  EMPORIO Armani Round Dial Silver by paytm through online, chronograph AR 1721 amounting to Rs.29,995/-.  The said parcel was dispatched through xpressbees courier.  The complainant approached with courier boy for delivery of order, the courier boy said “Coming in 15-20 minutes and when did not come, he called courier partner but the delivery was refused.  After that the complainant took his parcel from the office of Xpressbees and the employee of that office said that some of the packets may be out there will be no guarantee of our any kind since then responsible packet open you will have to think a thing when the parcel was opened by the complainant.  The parcel was packed with ordinary petty tape and a wristwatch box was inserted in a khaki-coloured box, when the wrist watch was seen from all sides.  It is submitted that neither the manufacturing company’s name was not the maximum retail price, the guarantee warranty and terms and conditions by the company were not written on seal.  It is further submitted that when the box was opened by the complainant, he was surprised to see that the watch design and colour shown on the payment online application was different from this watch.  The complainant immediately contacted the courier service  but courier services cannot be of any help.  On dated 5.10.2018, the paytm account was closed and will not be able to do any kind of transactions.  The complainant’s paytm account is now available at Rs.4779/- and he cannot deal with any kind of company.   The complainant alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents he has to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses.  Therefore, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.29,995/- as cost of Armani round dial silver , fine of Rs.25,000/- on paytm and Rs.20,000/- as cost for mental agony and harassment caused by the OPs.   Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, he has to file the present complaint.

2.                     No one has appeared on behalf of OP no. 1 and 2.  Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 22.11.2018 and 19.8.2019.

3.                     On appearance, OP no. 3 filed written statement alleging therein that the allegation of complainant having an amount of Rs.4779/- is wrong.  It is submitted that the payment account of the complainant is not blocked with respect to carrying out monetary transaction.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no. 3. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                     To prove its complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-9 and closed the evidence vide his separate statement dated 27.02.2022.  He has also placed on record the written arguments.

5.                     The complainant made a statement on dated 16.5.2023 that he received the amount of item and requesting for compensation  for harassment and litigation expenses.

6.                     We are of the considered view that after perusing the statement and facts of the case file, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 3.  Settlement has been taken place between the parties and the complaint has been settled.  The complainant is entitled for compensation and litigation charges from the opposite parties.  We hereby direct the opposite party no. 3 for compensation of harassment and litigation expenses as under:- 

1. To pay Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees five thousand only) for compensation of harassment.
2. To pay Rs.5500/- (Rupees five thousand five hundred only) for litigation expenses.

7.                     Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.

Dated: - 17.08.2023

 

 (D.M.Yadav)            (Saroj Bala Bohra)               

   Member.                        Presiding Member,

                                                District Consumer Disputes

                                               Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

 

 

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

          Sh. Bhuvnesh Makhija, Advocate for OP no. 3.

          OP no. 1 & 2 exparte.

 

                  Arguments heard.  Vide separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint stands allowed.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

               

Dt:17.08.2023    Member.           Presiding Member,

                                                 District Consumer Disputes

                                                 Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.