Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
Having been aggrieved over and dissatisfied with the purchase of a ‘Saree’ worth Rs.2200/- ordered on 29.10.2021 through Whatsapp which was allegedly not delivered at all and alleged delivery of wrong product against an order, this time also placed through whatsapp on 17.10.21, for a ‘Kurti’ worth Rs.499/- and a sweater worth Rs.1499/- from the opposite party as mentioned in the heading of this order, the instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Firstly, it should be mentioned here before proceeding in the matter of disposal of this case, that the case runs ex parte against the OP, as, in spite of proper service of notice and passing an order directing the OP to show cause as to why the case should not be heard ex parte, the sole OP preferred to shun the proceedings of the instant case.The OP did not appear before this Commission at any further stage in connection with this case.
The Complainant also appeared before this forum after being directed to show cause as to why the instant case should not be dismissed for non-prosecution.
However the Complainant finally filed evidence on affidavit and Brief Notes of Argument.
The Complainant in support of her claim has furnished a purported tax invoice, a few print outs of exchange of whatsapp messages and some other print outs of screenshots, perhaps generated from a android phone claimed to be evidence of payments made through a UPI to the OP.
The brief facts of the case have already been depicted in the very first paragraph of this order. However the synopsis of the complaint petition is as follows.
- Order was placed on 17.10 2021 with the OP through whatsapp for online purchase of a ‘Kurti’ of Rs.499/- and a sweater worth Rs.1499/-. But while delivering the product, wrong product was delivered.
- On 29.10.2021 another order was placed through whatsapp for purchase of a ‘Saree’ worth Rs.1499/- which was not delivered at all.
Allegedly, in spite of repeated persuasion and attempts to draw attention of the opposite party to the matter, neither there were the replacements in the first case nor there was delivery of goods in the second case.
Considering the OP’s treatment with him as ‘deficiency in service’ and ‘unfair trade practice’ the complaint petition has been filed in which the petitioner prays for imposing direction upon the OP to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for mental pain and agony and to pay further Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and litigation cost.
The Complainant is a resident of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-
Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Materials on records viz. the electronically filed complaint petition in a slipshod manner, evidence on affidavit, BNA and certain annexed documents viz. purported tax invoice, and print outs as mentioned before are perused. No other annexure appears to have been filed by the Complainant.
So far as the Complaint petition and the annexed documents are concerned, the conspicuous irregularities are as follows.
The copy of the Tax Invoice filed by the Complainant is devoid of any signature and thus cannot be treated as authenticated.
The screen shots of UPI payments against the purchases cannot be treated as genuine proofs of payments in absence of the corresponding bank statements.
Moreover the purported payments appear to have been made to some ‘Yes Baby’ whereas the OP is shown as ‘Yes Babu’.
Print outs of Whatsapp conversation between the Complainant and the OP also cannot be treated as authenticated documents to substantiate the irregularities in delivery of the goods. Besides somewhere the conversations are made with some ‘Yes Babu’ and somewhere the same are made with some ‘Yes Baby’. Naturally the actual credential of the OP becomes questionable.
The surprising feature of the Complaint petition is that while praying to the Commission for imposing directions upon the OP, not a single word is uttered about delivery of the goods and replacement of goods in the respective cases.
The Complainant has only expressed her interest in a fabulous compensation amount.
Now, in view of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Commission is of the view that the instant petition does not deserve consideration and also suffers from insufficient documentation.
The veracity of the statements incorporated in the complaint petition appears questionable.
Hence it is ORDERED
that the complaint case No.116/2022 be and the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
