D.O.F:25/01/2019

                                                                                               D.O.O:18/06/2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.18/19                                                                                                                                                

Dated this, the 18^th   day of June 2019

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M  : MEMBER

Venu.K

S/o.Narayanan.K

Velutholy (House) Pakkam P.O

Pallikere (via) Kasaragod – 671316                     :Complainant

Deal Must.com Website Shop

544A, Anna Nagar West.

Palladam Sales @dealmust.com                          : Opposite Party

Coimbatore -641664

ORDER

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M  : MEMBER

            The complaint is filed under section12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 The facts of the case in brief is as follows:-

            That on seeing TV advertisement, the complainant booked ` for a PRO Heavy Duty Ultra HD 360 X Zoom mobile phone Telescope clip lens of the Opposite Party through online and an article has been delivered to him on 07/01/2019.  The complainant has paid Rs.1300/- includes delivery charges of Rs.100/- at the time of delivery  of the article.  The product as per the advertisement of the Opposite Party was something by which one can see the remote objects very nearer.  But the product supplied to the opposite Party was a very substandard one, through which he could not see an object even at a distance of 10 meters.  It is stated that the acts of the Opposite Party is a unfair trade practice due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and other hardships apart from monitory loss.  Hence the complaint.

            The notice issued to opposite party was duly served but they were called absent and set exparte.

            The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination.  Document Ext A1 marked.  Which is the original bill –cum-cover note issued by the opposite party along with the product.

            Here two issues are raised for consideration

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party?
2. If so what is the relief?

For convenience both these issues can be considered together.In this case the specific case of the complainant is that on seeing the TV advertisement he booked for mobile phone telescope lens of the Opposite Party and the product supplied to him is a substandard one which do not have the standard of the product as shown in TV advertisement by the Opposite Party.It was advertised that using this product one can see remote objects like spots in the moon.But with the product delivered to him, he could not see the objects even at a distance of 10 meters.The act of the Opposite Party is unfair trade practice.

In the absence of any rebuttal evidence this Forum holds that there is unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and hardships apart from monitory loss.

Therefore the complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs.1300/- .the Opposite Party is also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and hardships and Rs.3000/- as costs.

Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of copy of the judgment.

    Sd/-                                                                                                                         Sd/

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Exhibit

A1. Original bill

  Sd/                                                                                                                            Sd/

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent

Ps/