| Final Order / Judgement | Judgment- Hon’ble Mr. Rajendra Kumar Panda, (President) Brief facts of the Case: Case in hand is the allegation of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the Opposite Party (in short Op) alleging that the Op not delivered the goods/grocery items. The complainant averred that the order was for an amount of Rs.40,200/- (Forty Thousand and Two Hundred rupees only) for the total value of materials used in the eve of “Holi Festival” as per discussion and mutual agreed between the Complainant and the Op. Accordingly, the complainant paid total money of Rs.40,200/- in cash on which the Op given his endorsement on dtd:05.02.2024.But despite receipt of total payment the Op neither delivered the total indent goods nor returned the balance amount of Rs.15,020/-. The Complainant further stated that the items in part delivered at Paralakhemundi by the Op through Jai Hindi Garage Transport Agency located at Saddani darbar, Raipur on dtd:20.02.2024. The Complainant averred that he is a consumer under the Op selling the Holi Festival items for maintaining of his livelihood by means of self-employment and the Op is a service provider being a seller cum supplier but not supplied the total items though taken total value of Rs.40,200/- in respect of the items. The Complainant further stated the Op supplied items/materials valued Rs.25,180/- and inspite of repeated approach and legal notice dtd:06.04.2024 he has not returned the rest amount of Rs.15,020/-. Aggrieved by such unfair means and deficiency of service, the Complainant filed this complaint with a prayer for get back of the amount of Rs.15,020/- with compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for mental agony and sufferings besides litigation costs of Rs.20,000/- and other reliefs. - The Commission by admitting the case issued notices to the Op but the Op has not appeared and filed his version to defend the case.
- The Complainant adduced evidence in the form of affidavit and prayed to consider his complaint and evidence affidavit as written note of argument. Perused the complaint, evidence affidavit, documents in respect of disability marked Ext-1 and supporting documents list of items of order showing endorsement of the Op regarding receptance of Rs.40,200/- from the Complainant for the total items marked Ext-2 deliver receipt of transport agency marked Ext-3, notice dtd:28.03.2024 through Mark Courrier dtd :06.04.2024 and its postal track receipt indicating delivered on 11.04.2024 marked Ext-4 and 4/1 respectively.
- On perusal it noticed that the notice to the Op on dtd:28.03.2024 duly served. Similarly, the notices of this Commission duly served to the Op. It is the well settled law non rebuttal of evidence is admission of allegations alleged in the Complaint. Furthermore, even after receiving notice, the Op have not submitted a response or challenged to the complainant’s claims and their failure to participate in the proceedings, despite acknowledging the Commission’s notice is considered an acknowledgment of the allegation made against them.
- Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of nation described the consumer as “A customer is the important visitor in our premises. He is not dependent on us, we are dependent on him. He is not an interruption in our work, he is the purpose to it. He is not outsider in our business. He is part of it, we are not doing him a favour by serving him, He is doing us a favour by giving us an opportunity to do so”.
- In the instant case, the Complainant deprived from his rights as a consumer of the Opposite party. The Ops are remained silence over the issues of the Complaint. The legal principle is that “Silence may sometimes amount to admission” of fact. In Union of India vrs Prakash P. Hinduja (2003) – which dealt with customs duty evasion, and the Supreme Court observed that when a person, upon questioning fails to provide any explanation or response, it can be inferred that they do not have any valid explanation and their silence can be used against them.
- The Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments including the recent judgment regarding not delivering of apartment after receipt of amount and consequently not refunds the said amount, a 3 Judge bench headed by Hon’ble Justice U.U Lalit said that “it is clear from the statutory position that the commission is empowered to direct refund of the amount and to compensate a consumer for the deficiency in not delivering the apartment as per the terms of the agreement is within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Courts. U/s-14 of Consumer Protection Act 1986(corresponding to Sec-39 of C.P Act,2019) if the Commission is satisfied that any of the allegation contained in the complaint about the services are proved it shall issue an order to the Opposite party directing him to return to the Complainant the price or as the case may be, the charges paid by the Complainant along with such interest on such price or charges as may be decided.
O R D E R On forgoing discussion and in view of the clear position of law (supra) the Complainant’s case is allowed against the OP. The O.P is liable to pay balance amount of Rs.15,020/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand and Twenty rupees only) with compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental & physical agonies and together with Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant within 25 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall be realized @ 22% interest per annum till its actual date of realization and Complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the C.P Act-2019 for realization of all dues. Further the O.P is directed to strictly follow the Regulation 5 (3)(a) of the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules 2020 and provide all the information in a clear and accessible manner displayed prominently to inform the users at the appropriate place. This case is disposed of accordingly. A copy of the order supplied to the parties at free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The parties to the case can also download same from The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. File be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment duly signed in each page. Pronounced on Dtd:03.12.2024 | |
