Sri Ranjan Ray, Ld. Member
FINAL ORDER/ JUDGEMENT
This complaint under the provision of C.P. Act, 2019 was initially filed against the Opposite Party (O.P.)- A. K. Enterprise, N.S.P., Vardhaman Olaza,h4 Office No. 309, near P.P. Jewellers, Netaji Subhas Palace, Delhi- 110034 and as per the Order No. 10, dated 12.04.2023 of this Commission the case runs ex- parte against O.P.
The case of the complainant as per his complaint is as follows-
The complainant purchased service from the O.P. on 21.08.2021 which was a trip to any one place of India within 01 (one) year for any 04 (four) people for an amount of Rs. 8, 935.85/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Five and Eighty Five paisa) only. On 25.08.2021 when the complainant received the documentation from the O.P., he found that out of 04 (people), 02 (two) should be adult and 02 (two) should be children but at the time of taking money, the O.P. promised that 04 (four) people could be any 04 (four). Thereafter, the documentation showed specification. Being dissatisfied and feeling cheated by the O.P., the complainant wanted to cancel the service but the O.P. did not give any satisfactory answer. In this circumstance, the complainant had been constrained to file this present complaint for the redressal of his legitimate grievances.
The prayers of complainant are as follows: -
- To pass an order directing the O.P. to pay a sum of Rs. 8,935/-( Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Five and Eighty Five paisa) only which was the paid amount, to the complainant.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only for mental and physical harassment of the complainant.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 50, 000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the complainant for unfair trade practice.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s to pay a sum of Rs. 20, 000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only for litigation expenses to the complainant.
- Any other relief/ reliefs which the complainant
List of Documents filed by the complainant:
- Copy of Statement of Account of Credit Card. (Page No. 1)
- Copy of Driving e-mail communications. (Page No. from 2 - 18).
- Copy of Track Report.
Opposite Party- (O.P.)- A. K. Enterprise, N.S.P., Vardhaman Olaza,h4 Office No. 309, near P.P. Jewellers, Netaji Subhas Palace, Delhi- 110034 and as per the Order No. 10, dated 12.04.2023 of this Commission the case runs ex- parte against O.P.
Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and on perusal of the complaint and documents filed by the complainant the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?
3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case?
4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
Seen and perused the complaint petition which is supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the complainants. We are also heard arguments of the complainant in full length.
It is very much clear from the evidences that the complainant resides in P.O. and P.S. - Bagdogra of Darjeeling district. Thus, there is no doubt that this Commission has its territorial jurisdiction as per the C.P. Act, 2019 to decide this case.
Seen and perused the complaint filed by the complainant as well as documents filed by the complainant it is also clear that the complainant purchased a product/ service amounting to the cost of Rs. 8, 935.85/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Five and Eighty Five paisa) only from the O.P. (A. K. Enterprise) and thus this Commission holds that the complainant is a very much consumer in this case as per the C.P. Act, 2019.
In this instant case, the complainant purchased service from the O.P. on 21.08.2021 which was a trip to any one place of India within 01 (one) year for any 04 (four) people for an amount of Rs. 8, 935.85/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Five and Eighty Five paisa) only. On 25.08.2021 when the complainant received the documentation from the O.P., he found that out of 04 (people), 02 (two) should be adult and 02 (two) should be children but at the time of taking money, the O.P. promised that 04 (four) people could be any 04 (four). Thereafter, the documentation showed specification. Being dissatisfied and feeling cheated by the O.P., the complainant wanted to cancel the service but the O.P. did not give any satisfactory answer. In this circumstance, the complainant had been constrained to file this present complaint for the redressal of his legitimate grievances.
In order to prove the case the Complainant has filed its evidence in the form of an Affidavit and in the Written Complainant has specifically corroborated the complaint and has stated on which day he purchased the product/ service from the O.P., also narrated the date of payment. The Complainant has also stated in his evidence that the Complainant several times sent letters to the O.P. through e-mail several times but the O.P. did not make any response.
At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P not only through her Written Deposition but also by producing documents.
In view of above discussion and other materials on record we are of the view that this Commission has sufficient Jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as a consumer dispute and thereby this case is maintainable.
The notice was sent to the O.P. which was delivered to him on 23.10.2023but after receiving the same the O.P. did not turn up before this Commission and as per the Order No. 19, dated 14.12.2023 of this Commission the case runs ex- parte against the O.P.
In this case, the complainant purchased a product from the O.P. on 21.08.2021 and he paid a sum of Rs. 8, 935.85/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Five and Eighty Five paisa) only to the O.P. but no agreement related document was filed by the complainant to prove his case. There are some correspondence between the complainant and the O.P. are available in the record from which it is clear that the complainant purchased a product and in that case if he has any objection regarding this product the he cancel this product and will get 100% refund but this objection should made within 30 days (thirty days) from the date of purchase of that product.
In this instant case, this Commission does not get any type of document from the part of the complainant to show that the complainant raised an objection regarding the said product within 30 days from the date of his purchase.
On the other hand, after receiving the letter from the complainant the O.P. did not take any initiative to settle the matter. It is a duty of a reputed company to satisfy his customer and give him a clear picture that they repudiated his claim by showing valid reason.
It is very much clear from the record that the complainant did not get any service from the O.P. in respect of the said product. So, this Commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled to get back his money from the O.P.
In this particular case it is very much clear that the O.P. conducts this case in a very negligent manner and after receiving the notice he did not even consider it necessary to appear before this Commission.
Hence, it is,
O R D E R E D
That the Consumer Case No. 66/2022 be and same is allowed on ex-parte against the O.P. (A. K. Enterprise) but without any cost.
The complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. Rs. 8, 935.85/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty Five and Eighty Five paisa) only from the O.P. within 45 days from the date of this order, i.e., from 29.08.2024 failing which the complainant will be entitled to execute the award in accordance with law. No cost is allowed .
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.
