Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/350/2016

Ankiet Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

At-home C/o Nilkamal Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Jaiswal Adv.

14 Sep 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	350/2016
Date of Institution	:	19.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	14.09.2016

 

                                       

                               

 

Aniket Aggarwal s/o Sh.Anil Aggarwal, # 742, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

1.     At-home C/o Nilkamal Ltd., Chandigarh Store, 2^nd Floor, Elante Mall, Chandigarh.

2.     Nilkamal Ltd., Corporate Office, Nikamal House, Plot No.77-78, Road no.13-14, MIDC Andheri (East), Mumbai-400093, Maharashtra.

3.     Avenues India Pvt. Ltd., Level-12, Building No.8, Tower-C, DLF Cybercity, Phase-II, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

4.     Indian Bank, Estate Office, HUDA Complex, Sector 6, Panchkula.

…. Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

Argued by: Sh.Amit Jaswal, Counsel for the complainant

                 Sh.H.S.Parwana, Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

                 OPs No.3 and 4 exparte.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.         In brief, the case of the complainant is that  he booked a metal bed on the website of OPs No.1 and 2 on 15.12.2015 by paying Rs.12,999/- via debit card in advance and Rs.5/- as transaction charges.  Later on, the said order was cancelled by him by sending   e-mail on 17.12.2015. The cancellation request was accepted and OPs No.1 and 2 told the complainant to wait for two weeks for refund.  However, he did not receive the refund in his bank account within the stipulated period despite his repeated calls/e-mails [Annexure C-2 (Colly.)].  He also got served a legal notice (Annexure C-3) upon OPs No.1 & 2 through e-mail. Subsequently, the Customer Care of OP No.2 forwarded an e-mail to the complainant in order to communicate CC avenue reference number to show it to the bank but when he showed it to the bank (OP No.4), he was informed that there was no incoming refund against the said reference number.  It has further been averred that the said reply was communicated to the customer care executive alongwith the bank statement but to no effect. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the instant complaint.
2.         In their written statement, OPs No.1 and 2  have admitted the facts with regard to the booking of the metal bed, payment thereof through the debit card and the cancellation of the said order and the request for refund of the money.  It has further been pleaded that on receipt of the requests for cancellation of the order, they directed OP No.3 its nodal agency to arrange refund and it immediately took up the matter with OP No.4 vide e-mail dated 21.12.2015 for reversal of the transaction and allowing the refund to complainant. The complainant was also informed about the same vide e-mail dated 19.12.2015. It has been pleaded that despite the clear instructions by OP No.3 to OP No.4 to refund the amount, they could credit the amount on 02.06.2016. The remaining allegations were denied, being false. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record.
4.         During the course of the arguments i.e. on 29.08.2016, the Counsel for the complainant submitted that the amount of Rs.12,999,/- has been credited in the account of the complainant after the filing of the present complaint and, therefore, he be awarded compensation for mental agony & physical harassment and litigation expenses. 
5.         Admittedly, the complainant cancelled the booking of the metal bad after two days of its booking with OPs No.1 and 2 on 17.12.2015. However, the amount of Rs.12,999/- towards its refund has been credited to the account of the complainant only after the institution of the instant complaint, which itself proves the deficiency in service on the part of OPs No.1 and 2. Had they redressed the genuine grievance of the complainant within the reasonable period of 15 days or before filing of the instant complaint then the position certainly would have been different but they failed to do so. Keeping in view overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met if the complainant is awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/-. We order accordingly.
6.         In view of the foregoing discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs No.1 and 2 to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the awarded amount shall carry interest @9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

14.09.2016

Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER