DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 12th day of December 2023.
Filed on: 22/11/2021
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C No.444/2021
COMPLAINANT
Bianca, D/o. V.J.Kurian, permanently residing at Velliyamkandam House, 69/2903, Jewel Oakfield, SRM Road, Hamsakunju Lane, Mehar Lane, North P.O., Ernakulam, working at HCL, USA.
Rep.by Father of Bianca Kurian:
River Hills Ct Apt 920, Arlington, TX 76006, USA
Power of Attorney: V.J. Kurian,
Address: "No Oak Field" House, 69/2963, Jewel Velliamkandam, SRM Road, Hamsakunji Lane, Mehr Kalyan, North P.O.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
M/s. FUNTERIOR, Patleputhra Nagar, 2D RM No.501, Jogeswari West, Mumbai-400102.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is working in HCL in Dallas, Texas, USA, and ordered a recliner sofa through Amazon Advance, using SBI Bank, Palarivattam Branch, Ernakulam, on March 3, 2021. The sofa was supposed to be manufactured within 15 days and delivered through a courier agency called SPOT ON, Ernakulam, in Kerala, India, by April 24, 2021. Due to COVID-19-related issues, it was only delivered on May 13, 2021. The complainant had paid Rs. 39,000 as a 50% deposit at the time of the order.
The order was placed on Amazon India Ltd.’s website, and the seller agreed to deliver the goods within 12 to 15 days, with a five-year guarantee. However, the sofa was delivered over two months later, with different specifications and damage. The complainant informed the seller about the issues on the delivery date, including the lack of height and headrest alignment, as well as poor quality materials and stitching.
The seller initially agreed to rectify the mistakes but later blocked the complainant's contact number, making further communication impossible. Additionally, the seller issued a receipt for only Rs. 48,000, even though Rs. 78,000 had been paid, possibly for tax evasion purposes. This conduct is considered a deficiency of service, unfair trade practice, breach of trust, and cheating.
The complainant suffered significant loss, hardship, mental tension, trauma, inconvenience, and financial loss due to the seller's actions. Despite complaining to Amazon, the complainant received no assistance as the business was conducted directly with the seller. The complainant now seeks a refund of Rs. 78,000, along with Rs. 2 lakhs in compensation.
2) Notice
The commission sent a notice to the opposite party, but despite accepting the notice, the opposite party did not submit their version. Consequently, they are set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed an ex-parte proof affidavit and 9 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 to A9.
Exhibit A-1: Power of Attorney Document.
Exhibit A-2: Copy of the Account Statement Issued by State Bank of India.
Exhibit A-3: Original Copy of the Proforma Invoice (BILL)
Exhibit A-4: Original Copy of the Receipt Issued by Spot on Courier.
Exhibit A-5: Original Photographs of the defective Sofa set.
Exhibit A-6: Copies of the WhatsApp messages between the Complainant and the Opposite Party.
Exhibit A-7: Copy of the Legal Notice Issued by the Complainant.
Exhibit A-8: Original of the Postal Acknowledgement card.
Exhibit A-9: Original of the Speed Post Receipt.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. Copies of the Account Statement Issued by the State Bank of India and the original of the Proforma Invoice issued by the opposite party. The receipt evidencing payment to the opposite party (Exhibits A-2 and A3). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
The complainant has brought forth this case, seeking recompense due to the substandard service and unethical business conduct arising from the refusal of the opposite party to exchange a faulty sofa set. The complainant is now requesting a reimbursement of Rs.78,000/- in addition to Rs.2 lakhs as compensation.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version despite having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The complainant, in this case, is seeking redressal due to the substandard service and unethical business conduct on the part of the opposite party. The complainant ordered a recliner sofa through Amazon Advance, using SBI Bank, Palarivattam Branch, Ernakulam, on March 3, 2021. The sofa was supposed to be manufactured within 15 days and delivered by April 24, 2021, but due to COVID-19-related issues, it was only delivered on May 13, 2021, with different specifications and damage. The complainant informed the seller about the issues on the delivery date, including the lack of height and headrest alignment, as well as poor quality materials and stitching.
The seller initially agreed to rectify the mistakes but later blocked the complainant's contact number, making further communication impossible. Additionally, the seller issued a receipt for only Rs. 48,000, even though Rs. 78,000 had been paid, possibly for tax evasion purposes. This conduct is considered a deficiency of service, unfair trade practice, breach of trust, and cheating.
The complainant suffered significant loss, hardship, mental tension, trauma, inconvenience, and financial loss due to the seller's actions. Despite complaining to Amazon, the complainant received no assistance as the business was conducted directly with the seller.
Notice was sent to the opposite party, but they did not submit their version and are set ex-parte. The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, which was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence.
- Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice: The presented evidence, comprising photographs of the defective sofa and WhatsApp conversations (Exhibits A-5 and A-6), reveals substandard service and unethical business behaviour on the part of the seller. Not only did they neglect to resolve the identified issues, but they also avoided further communication, exacerbating their misconduct.
This evidence, coupled with the uncontested assertions of the complainant, conclusively demonstrates the seller's shortcomings in service and unethical practices. The seller not only failed to deliver the promised product within the agreed timeframe but also provided a flawed product and disregarded the complainant's subsequent grievances, ultimately ceasing communication. Additionally, the issuance of a receipt for an amount less than the actual payment further signifies their breach of ethical conduct (Point No. ii).
- Entitlement of Relief: In light of the uncontested evidence and the de facto acknowledgment of the allegations by the opposite party's non-response, the complainant has a justified claim to relief. This view aligns with the National Commission's decision in a similar case (2017 (4) CPR 590 (NC)). The commission thus mandates the opposite party to issue a refund of Rs. 78,000 to the complainant, addressing both the failure to deliver the product as promised and the resulting distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, the opposite party is instructed to compensate the complainant for engaging in unfair trade practices and providing inadequate service. (Point No. iii).
- As the opposite party failed to respond and participate in the proceedings, they shall bear the costs of the proceedings (Point No. iv).
The opposite party's conduct in this matter reflects a clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, violating the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This judgment aims to rectify the wrongs suffered by the complainant and uphold the principles of fair trade and consumer rights.
We find that issues (I) to (IV) are decided in favour of the complainant due to the substantial deficiency in service and unfair trade practices exhibited by the opposite parties. As a result of the negligence of the opposite party, the complainant has endured significant inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Party shall refund Rs.78,000/- (seventy-eight thousand rupees) to the complainant, the full purchase price of the sofa set as per the Account Statement (Exhibit A-2).
- The Opposite Party shall compensate the complainant with an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for the deficiencies in service and unfair trade practices committed and for the resulting mental agony, hardship, and financial losses suffered by the complainant.
- The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs. 10, 000/- (Rupees ten Thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party shall be responsible for the directives mentioned above ((i)and(ii)), which must be adhered to within 30 days from the receipt of a copy of this order. Failure to comply will result in the interest being charged at a rate of 9% from the date of filing this case (22.11.2021) until the date of payment.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 12th day of December 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Exhibit A-1: Power of Attorney Document.
Exhibit A-2: Copy of the Account Statement Issued by State Bank of India.
Exhibit A-3: Original Copy of the Proforma Invoice (BILL)
Exhibit A-4: Original Copy of the Receipt Issued by Spot on Courier.
Exhibit A-5: Original Photographs of the defective Sofa set.
Exhibit A-6: Copies of the WhatsApp messages between the Complainant and the Opposite Party.
Exhibit A-7: Copy of the Legal Notice Issued by the Complainant.
Exhibit A-8: Original of the Postal Acknowledgement card.
Exhibit A-9: Original of the Speed Post Receipt.
Date of Despatch :;
By Hand ::
By Post :
