Haryana

Ambala

CC/185/2022

Goldy Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Marvans Mobile - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Kumar

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

Complaint case no.	:	185 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	06.06.2022
Date of decision	:	18.04.2023

 

Goldy Jain w/o Sh. Gaurav Jain, aged about 44 years, r/o House No.242, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Ambala City, Haryana.

.……. Complainant

                                                Versus

 

M/s Marvans Mobile through its Authorized person r/o Shipra Complex, OP Road, Vadodara, Gujarat.

 

.…. Opposite Party

 

 Before:      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Tushar Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   OP already ex-parte.      

           

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

 

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of directions to refund the amount of Rs.82,867/- alongwith interest @24% P.A. and also pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages, compensation, mental harassment, torture etc.            

2.           Brief facts of this case are that the complainant ordered an iPhone 12 Pro through the online website from the OP, vide order number 20178 on making payment of Rs.82,867/- vide ICICI Bank Credit Card on 10.07.2021. As per the tracking record, the product was to be delivered at the address of the complainant within 7-14 days. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the authorized person of the OP company namely Sh. Wahid who also assured that the confirmed order would reach the complainant by 02.08 2021 but to no avail. Thereafter, staring from 02.08.2021, the complainant wrote number of emails and also Whatsapp messages were exchanged between the parties, yet, the mobile handset was not delivered to her. Ultimately, the OP showed its inability to supply the mobile handset and promised the complainant to refund her amount but to no avail. Notice dated 14.09.2021 served upon the OP in the matter also did not yield any result.  Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OP, before this Commission, therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 26.08.2022.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-21. Further evidence of the complainant was closed vide order dated 09.03.2023.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by neither supplying the mobile in question nor refunding the price thereof, despite giving assurance in that regard, the OP is deficient in providing services.
7.           Perusal of record reveals that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.82,867/- through credit card, Annexure C-1 on 10.07.2021 to the OP towards  purchase of the said mobile phone and the order was confirmed by the OP vide Annexure C-2 under order ID-20178. It is also coming out from Annexure C-20 that the OP showed its inability in supplying the mobile handset and offered refund of the amount paid, for which the complainant was directed to contact Mr. Wahid Badami. It is further coming out from the record Annexure C-7 to C-18 that a lot of correspondence was exchanged between the parties, including with Mr. Wahid Badami, yet the amount paid by the complainant was not refunded to her by the OP. In the complaint and also during arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that despite the fact that number of assurances were given to her by the OP, yet, her amount has not been refunded. It is significant to mention here that, as stated above, notice of this complaint was sent to OP seeking its version of the case, yet, nobody appeared on its behalf, despite service. The non-appearance of the OP shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant went unrebutted & uncontroverted. Thus, by neither providing the mobile in question to the complainant nor  refunding the amount paid by her, the complainant has been caused a lot of mental agony and harassment, which act  amounts to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  The OP is held liable to refund Rs.82867/- cost of the mobile along with interest and is also liable to pay compensation and litigation expenses.  
8.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against OP and direct it, in the following manner:-
   1. To refund the amount of Rs.82,867/- to the complainant alongwith interest @4% p.a. from 10.07.2021 onwards.
   2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
   3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP shall pay interest @ 6% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 18.04.2023

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President