| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BATHINDA CC.No. 199 of 01-08-2019 Decided on 25-05-2022 Sunny Singh alias Gurjaspreet Singh aged about 19 years S/o Sh. Krishan Singh R/o Ward No. 3, New Basti, Goniana Mandi, Distt. Bathinda. ........Complainant Versus eRetail India SC 11 Sub Cellar Navketan Building, S. Road, Opp. Clock Tower, Secunderabad Telangana, through its authorized Signatory. Tata CLIQ, Regional Office, Nova Compound, # 396, Moraya Village, Sarkhej Bavla Highway. Taulka Sanad, Ahmedabad through its authorised signatory Rising Stats Mobile Pvt. Ltd., Manufacturer of Redmi Mobile, Plot No. M-2B, Sipcot Industrial Park, Phase II, Hi Tech Sez. DTA Area, Sriperumvudur Taluk, Kancheenpuram, Tamilnadu 602106 through its authorized signatory Blue Dart Courier Service, Ganpati Enclave, Bathinda, through its owner/Prop.
.......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : None for the complainant For opposite parties : OPs 1 & 2 exparte OP No. 3 deleted Sh. Chander Mohan, Advocate, for OP No.4. ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Sunny 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 eRetail India and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he placed an online order for Xomi (Redmi) GS RAM Dual vide reference No.190603-004 -776706 dated 3.6.2019 through opposite party No.1, marketed by opposite party No. 2 and manufactured by opposite party No.3 at the described price of Rs.7,570/- i.e. final price. It is alleged that the opposite parties in compliance of the order as placed, made delivery of mobile set order ID 104991594 +10037906060224 as ordered through opposite party No.4 but when the complainant opened the said pack/box in the presence of Sh. Ajay Singh employee of opposite party No.4, the complainant was shocked that the set was missing in the pack/box but only data cable and charger were available in the box of packing of courier. This fact is in the knowledge of the concerned employee of opposite party No.4. The complainant further alleged that he immediately lodged his complaint through email bearing reference No. ID 4006570258 with the opposite party No. 2. The complainant also lodged complaint through help line and the opposite party sought some time to resolve the grievances of the complainant. The opposite parties with the connivance of each other and to defraud the consumer used to sell products online but causing loss to them and cheat the people as is happened with the complainant. The opposite parties have sold the mobile set but not delivered the same meaning thereby that they had indulged in unfair trade, practice and deficiency in service by not providing the mobile even receiving the price of the mobile set. Due to the said act of the opposite parties, the complainant suffered mental tension and agony for which he claims compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund Rs.7,570/- from the opposite parties alongwith interest and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation in addition to Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges. On the statement of complainant, name of opposite party No. 3 was deleted from the array of the parties vide order dated 6-8-2019. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No. 1 & 2, as such, exparte proceedings were taken against them. The opposite party No. 4 put an appearance through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising preliminary objections that the opposite party Blue Dart Express Limited is engaged in courier business and is one of the most reputed courier company in India. The opposite party, has entered into an agreement dated with E-Retail India to carry shipments of E Retail/its vendors from the point of origin to the destination as specified. All shipments are picked up in intact/sealed condition and delivered to the consignee in intact condition. As per the agreement executed with the E-Retail, the liability of opposite party qua the E-Retail is limited to Rs. 5, 000/- per shipment or the invoice value declared or the cost of reconstruction whichever is lower. That the present complaint is false, frivolous, vague and vexatious. That the complainant is not consumer as defined under the 'Act'. That the complaint is not maintainable qua opposite party No. 4 as booked consignment was successfully delivered in the packed condition as received by the opposite party. No complaint was lodged by the complainant with regard to any deficiency in delivering the consignment but despite that the complainant has un-necessarily dragged the opposite party No. 4 into uncalled litigation. That the complaint is devoid of any material particulars and has been filed merely to harass and gain undue advantage and unjustified monies from the opposite party and that the complaint has been filed with ulterior motive and malafide intention to cause harassment and prejudice to opposite party No. 4 which is company of high repute. On merits, it has been reiterated that opposite party No. 4 picked the sealed consignment for its delivery to the complainant and the same was successfully delivered to him in sealed condition. The opposite party No. 4 denied that the pack was opened in the presence of opposite party No. 4. It has been pleaded that the pack was delivered to the complainant and no complaint was ever lodged with opposite party No. 4. The opposite party No. 4 delivered the consignment in a sealed condition. It has been denied for want of knowledge that in the packet only data cable & charger were there. No complaint was lodged by the complainant with regard to any deficiency in delivering the consignment. It has been further pleaded that the opposite party No. 4 has no role in packing of the product. The opposite party No. 4 picked the sealed parcel from the consignor for its delivery to the consignee and has done his duty. Moreover the complainant did not avail any services of opposite party No. 4 as the product for delivery was booked by opposite parties No. 1 &2. After controverting all other averments of the complainant, the opposite party No. 4 prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1) and the documents (Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-5). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No. 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Vivek Kumar (Ex. OP-4/1) and photocopy of customer contract form (Ex. OP-4/2). None appeared on behalf of complainant. The learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 reiterated his version as pleaded in written reply and detailed above. We have heard learned counsel for opposite party No. 4 and gone through the evidence led by the parties. In the case in hand, the complainant has alleged that he ordered online Xomi (Redmi) GS RAM Dual vide reference No.190603-004 -776706 dated 3.6.2019 through opposite party No.1, marketed by opposite party No. 2 and manufactured by opposite party No. 3 at the described price of Rs.7,570/-. In compliance of order of complainant, opposite parties No. 1 & 2 delivered sealed packet to complainant through courier i.e. opposite party No. 4, but according to complainant, when he opened the packet/box in question, mobile hand set was missing in the pack and only data cable and charger were found in the box received from courier i.e. opposite party No. 4. To prove aforeaid version, the complainant has placed on file only two bills (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3), which show that complainant placed an online order for mobile hand set in question against Cash On Delivery on 4-6-2019 against total price of Rs. 8369/-. Except these two documents, there is nothing on file to prove that complainant did not receive the ordered mobile. The complainant has not even brought on file any photograph of articles received by him. A perusal of Ex. C-3 further reveals that payment was to be made by the complainant on delivery of product i.e. Cash on Delivery but no evidence is brought on file by the complainant that payment was made. The complainant has alleged that he lodged complaint through e-mail and also on helpline, but no evidence to this effect has been placed on file. The complainant has also alleged that he opened the said pack in the presence of Sh. Ajay Singh employee of opposite party No.4, but opposite party No. 4 it its written reply specifically denied that any packet was opened by complainant in the presence of employee of opposite party No. 4. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission is of the considered opinion that relief cannot be granted to the consumer on the basis of conjecture and surmises. The complainant in the case in hand, has failed to prove his case by cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has not placed on file even a single document to prove that ordered mobile hand set was not received/found by him in the box sent by opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and delivered by opposite party No. 4. In the result, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to covid pandemic and heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 25-5-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
