IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

                                                                                                Date of filing :  06.06.2015

                                                                                              Date of order : 29/04/2023

PRESENT:

                    Shri.D.B.Binu                                                         President

          Shri. V.Ramachandran                                           Member

                    Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                              Member

                                               C.C.No.60/2018                                

COMPLAINANT

Riyas Muthanayil, S/o.Abdul Majeed Muthanayil, Muthanayil Home, Kunnappully P.O., Perinthalmanna, Malappuram, Pin-679 322

(party-in-person)

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Managing Director, Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt. Ltd., 34/1000, N.H.47, Edappally, Kochi-682 024
2. Manager, Lulu Fashion Store, Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt. Ltd., 34/1000, N.H.47, Edappally, Kochi-682 024

(op 1 and 2 rep. by Adv. Abdul Raoof P., Adv.Lakshmana Iyer, MK Associates, Kochi-18)

F I N A L   O R D E R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

1)     A brief history of the complaint is as stated below:

        The complainant purchased a perfume by name Diesel Wild 125 ml on  28.10.2016 for Rs.5100/- from Lulu Fashion Store, Edappally, a unit owned and operated by the 1^st opposite party.  After reaching home, while opening the perfume it is found that the perfume is odorless.  On the next day the complainant reached the store and after inspection the perfume was taken back by the Manager along with the original invoice.  Till now the opposite parties have not either supplied a new perfume in substitute of the returned one or refunded the amount of Rs.5100/- paid by the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

2. Notice

        Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 05.02.2018.  Upon notice 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared before the Commission and version was filed on 23.03.2018.

3)     Version of the opposite parties 1 and 2

        The opposite parties stated that the above complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a perfume by name “Diesel Wild’ but it was odorless.  The manufacturer is liable for such a complaint.  Since the complaint has been filed without arraigning the manufacturer in a case of alleged manufacturing defect, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.  The opposite parties have sold the perfume with odor/fragrance and the complainant was satisfied with the fragrance after testing the same.  Being a seller of Diesel perfume this opposite parties had sold the same manufactured by the Diesel Company.  The after sale services and warranties are governed by the policies of the manufacturer and this opposite parties have no role to play in the said transaction.  All other contentions are stoutly denied by the opposite parties.  The allegation that one Mr. Joseph Xavier the Manager of the opposite party has accepted the product back but no intimation was given regarding the replacement of product or refund of money was also denied by these opposite parties.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

4)     Evidence

        Evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which are filed along with the complainant.  Complainant has filed 5 documents along with the complaint which are marked as Exbts.A1 to A5.

        The complainant is absenting since 27.02.2020.  Hence we have considered the documents filed along with the complaint.

        The 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party have no evidence.  Since the complainant is absenting continuously the Commission heard the counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2. 

5)     The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows:

1)       Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

2)       Whether the complainant is entitled to get back of Rs.5100/- towards the purchase of perfume?

3)       Whether the complainant is entitled to get the compensation and cost of proceedings?

For the sake of convenience we have considered issue No. (1), (2) and (3) jointly. 

The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a perfume ‘Diesel Wild 125 ml’ on 28.10.2016 paying a sum of Rs.5100/- from Lulu Fashion Store, Edappally.  After reaching the home, while opening the perfume it is found that the perfume is odorless. 

Exbt.A1 is the receipt for debit card payment for the product.  Exbt.A2 is the true copy of the invoice for Rs.5100/- issued by Lulu Fashion Store, A division of Lulu International Shopping Mall, Edappally.  After inspection the perfume was taken back by one Mr.Joseh Xavier, Parcos Lulu.  The complainant alleges that the opposite parties have not given any intimation regarding the replacement of the product.  Therefore the complainant had written Exbt.A3 letter to the opposite party 1 requesting to pay back the money along with compensation.  Exbt.A4 is the postal acknowledgment card of the above notice.  The complainant states in his complaint that the opposite parties have not supplied a new perfume in substitute of the returned one or refunded the amount of Rs.5,100/- paid by the complainant.

          From the available documents and evidence in this case it is proved that the opposite parties have supplied perfume without any odour.  By supplying the odorless perfume and by accepting the product back, the opposite parties have not supplied a new perfume in this case.  The amount of Rs.5100/- was also not refunded to the complainant.

The opposite parties have not produced any evidence in this case to prove that they have not received back the product.  The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to prove that they have already settled the matter.  Hence we cannot disbelieve the words of the complainant and issue Nos.(1) , (2) and (3) are found in favour of the complainant.

Eventhough the manufacturer of the perfume is not impleaded in the party array, dealer is responsible to refund the price of the perfume since the product is received back by the dealer.

Hence the issues are found in favour of the complainant and the following orders are hereby passed

1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 shall refund Rs.5100/- the price of the product to the complainant. 
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 shall pay an amount of Rs.3000/- to the complainant as compensation towards the deficiency in service of the opposite parties.
3. No cost of proceedings is allowed in this case since the complainant was absent on almost all dates of posting of the case.
4. The liability of the opposite parties shall be jointly and severally.

        The above order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.  If the order is not complied within 30 days, the amount ordered vide order (1) above shall attract interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realization.

        Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 29^th day of April 2023

                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                            Sreevidhia T.N., Member

                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                            D.B.Binu, President

                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                            V.Ramachandran, Member

                                                                                        Forwarded by Order

                                                                                        Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainants Exhibits

Opposite party’s Exhibits      :      Nil

 C.C.No.60/2018

                                                                                   Order dated 28.04.2023