| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 90 of 16-03-2020 Decided on : 29-07-2021 Bhupinder Singh, aged about 40 years S/o S. Darshan Singh R/o House No. 22367, Street No. 3, Shant Nagar, Bathinda, Tehsil & District Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus Club Factory, Registered Address, House No. B-392, First Floor, Nirman Vihar, Near Metro Station, New Delhi, East Delhi, Delhi – 110092, (deleted) Gera Creation, 166 IP Colony, Near SLF Mall, Faridabad, Haryana 121003
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President. Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member. Present For the complainant : Sh. Bhupinder Singh, in person For opposite parties : OP No. 1 deleted OP No. 2 exparte ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Bhupinder Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against opposite parties Club Factory and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that through online site of the opposite parties he ordered one pair of 'Discount Under Armour Scorpio Men's Fitness Running Training Shoes' for Rs. 3600/- against COD. The said shoes were delivered to complainant on 3-1-2020 through courier Service namely Delivery, Malout Road, Bathinda, on 3-1-2020. The complainant alleged that at the time of delivery of shoes, he requested the courier person to allow him to check the shoes, but he did not agree and pressurized him to pay Rs. 3600/-. Under compelling circumstances, complainant paid Rs. 3600/- and collected box/parcel. It is alleged by complainant that when he opened the box of shoes, he found that product/pair of shoes was duplicate and was not original as ordered by complainant. The complainant made a telephone call to the opposite parties at No. 91124-6868777 and they assured that product is original and in case there is any fault, they will refund the amount. The complainant further alleged that since the product was not original, he returned the same to the opposite parties vide receipt dated 15-1-2020 alongwith original bill. Thereafter, complainant approached the opposite parties for refund of the amount, but they kept on lingering on the matter on the execuse that parcel returned by the complainant did not match with the product sent by them. The complainant reported the matter to the police on 17-02-2020, but no action was taken by them. It is pleaded that complainant through on-line chat made repeated requests to the opposite parties to admit his claim and refund the amount, but to no effect. Ultimately, the opposite parties refused the refund the price of the shoes. The complainant alleged tha the opposite parties neither replaced his shoes nor refunded the price of shoes, paid by him. Thus, there is groess deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund Rs. 3600/- to the complainant and pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and cost. In view of statement suffered by counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No. 1 was deleted from the array of opposite parties. Registered A.D. Notice of complaint was sent to opposite party No. 2. Neither registered letter nor AD received back undelivered. None appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2. As such, exparte proceedings were taken against opposite party No. 2. The complainant led exparte evidence. In support of his claim, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 13-3-2020 (Ex. C-1), photocopoy of E-mail (Ex. C-2), photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-3), photocopy of order details (Ex. C-4) and photocopy of letter (Ex. C-5). In additional evidence, complainant has tendered details regarding price of shoes (Ex. C-6), photocopies of order details (Ex. C-7 & Ex. C-8), photocopies of details regarding status of order (Ex C-9 to Ex. C-12), photocopies of details regarding delivery status (Ex. C-13 & Ex. C-14), photocopy of order details (Ex. C-15), photocopy of delivery challan (Ex. C-16), photocopy of messages (Ex. C-17), photocopies containing details regarding return status of shoes (Ex.C-18 to Ex. C-21) and photocopy of message (Ex. C-22). We have heard complainant in person and gone through the file carefully. The complainant has submitted that on 26-12-2019, from the website of the opposite parties, he ordered a pair of shoes 'Discount Under Armour Scorpio Men's Fitness Running Training Shoes' aginst COD for Rs. 3600/-. At the time of delivery of product by courier sent by the opposite parties, he requested the delivery person to allow him to open the box and check the product but he did not agree for the same and delivered the box after collecting price of product. He further submitted that when he opened the box of shoes, he found that the product delivered to him was not original one as ordered by him. Accordingly, complainant applied for return of product/shoes and refund of price. The box containing shoes was got collected from complainant after proper checking through courier sent by the opposite parties. Thereafter status regarding refund was updated on the site that application for return was rejected for the reasons 'Your return does not match the product'. The complainant prayed before this Commission that thereafter opposite parties neither returned the product in question nor refunded its price despite his repeated requests and he has been harassed by the opposite parties, We have given careful consideration to these submissions of complainant and gone through the record. A persual of record reveals that through website of opposite parties, complainant ordered a pair of shoes 'Discount Under Armour Scoroio Men's Fitness Running Training Shoes' vide Invoice No. SON15780292016497354 (Ex. C-4) against COD for Rs. 3599/-. Since the product delivered to complainant was not upto the mark, he applied for return of the same and refund of its price. Vide Pick-up receipt/Delivery Challan (Ex. C-3), complainant handed over shoes in question to the courier person sent by the opposite parties. Ex. C-22 is the document containing details regarding 'Return Status' which reveals that complainant applied, pick-up done and delivered. Thereafter as per Ex. C-17 return was rejected on the ground that return parcel did not pass the quality check and further as per Ex. C-20, the reason for rejection was that the return does not match the product. The complainant has also placed on file a complaint/application dated 17-02-2020 (Ex. C-5) given to SHO, Civlil Lines, Police Station, Bathinda, wherein he has specifically mentioned that he applied for return of shoes online purchased by him, but the police did not redress his grievance. To prove his version, complainant has produced on record sufficient evidence, but opposite party No. 2, despite service of notice, did not appear and failed to rebut the evidence of complainant. Document placed on file Ex. C-7 proves that product delivered was of Gera Creations and its price was Rs. 3599/-. Ex. C-15 shows that return was also rejected by opposite party No. 2. Keeping in view the evidence placed on file by complainant, this Commission is of the considered view that when the product in question was received back after proper checking then there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 2 in rejecting the same at later stage. When the product was received back and accepted by opposite party No. 2, then opposite party No. 2 was duty bound to refund the price of product to complainant. The complainant was unnecessarily harassed by opposite party No. 2. Thus, opposite party No. 2 is liable to refund the price of product in question and to pay cost and compensation for harassment caused to complainant. Resultantly, this complaint is partly accepted against opposite party No. 2 with Rs. 1500/- as cost and compensation. The opposite party No. 2 is directed to refund Rs. 3600/- being cost of aforesaid shoes to complainant. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases and vacancy of post of members. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced:- 29-07-2021 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
