SMT. MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER

This is  a complaint filed by the complainant  U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for an order directing the opposite party to replace the watch or to refund the value of Rs.669/- to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.

The case of the complainant in brief

            The complainant had purchased a ROOQ DZ09 Watch (black colour)  from OP vide order ID 22979748996 dated 10/08/2018 through their online marketing service.  As per the advertisement and offer made by the OP the complainant had purchased the product for an amount of Rs.669/- through online banking on 10/08/2018.  The OP offered that the watch will be delivered on or before 21/08/2018 but the OP delivered only on 26/08/2018.  On the immediate day itself the watch is not working condition.  The complainant is not able to recharge the battery of the watch and hence not able to open the watch also.  On 26/08/2018 itself the complainant send e-mail to OP to demand that the product is replaced.  But the OP denied the same.   The OP had offered one month warranty for the said watch.  But the OP had not replace the defective product or refund the amount to complainant.  There after the complainant send a lawyer notice to OP on 29/09/2018.   The OP received the notice and neither send a reply nor refund the value of watch to complainant.  The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence the complaint.           

            After filing the complaint notice issued to OP.  OP received the notice and appeared before the commission and filed his written version.  He contended that the website is an electronic platform which acts as an intermediary to facilitate sales transaction between independent 3^rd party sellers and independent end customers.  OP also contended that the seller is impleaded as the necessary and seller is responsible for delivery of goods to the customers.  Moreover he states that OP does not guarantee, warranty or provide any assurance on the behavior of any user of the website including any guarantee, warranty or assurance that any user (whether buyer or seller) will complete any transaction or act  is a prudent manner”.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of OP and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

            On the basis of the rival contentions by the pleadings the following issues were framed for considerations.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?
3. Relief and costs?

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of Pw1 and Ext.A1 to A3 were marked.  On OP’s side no oral evidence and no documents marked.

Issue No.1

            The complainant adduced evidence before the commission by submitting his chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination to the tune of the pleadings in the complaint and denying the contentions to the version. He was cross examined as Pw1 by OP.  He relied up on Ext.A1 to A3.  In Ext.A1 is the confirmation order dated 10/08/2018.  In Ext.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice dated 29/09/2018 issued by complainant to OP. In Ext.A3 is the postal receipt dated 01/10/2018.  As per the exhibits it is clear that the complainant had purchased ROOQOZ09 watch (black colour) from OP vide order 1022979748996 dated 10/08/2018 for an amount of Rs.669/-.   In evidence Pw1 stated that “ഒരു ഇടനിലക്കാരൻ മാത്രമാണ് ? അല്ല ഞാൻ പണം അവർക്കാണ് കൊടുത്ത്"  Then the complainant received the watch on 26/08/2018 but not in a working condition.  The complainant is not recharge the battery of the watch even to open the watch also.  He informed the matter immediately to OP.  But the OP is not ready to replace the product or refund the value of the product to the complainant.  So the act of the OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss.  There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  Hence the issue No.1 found in favour of the complainant and answered accordingly.

Issue No.2 and 3

            As discussed above the OP is not ready to refund the amount of Rs.669/- to complainant or to replace the product also.  According to the complainant failure to refund the amount the OP is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant.  Therefore we held that the OP is liable to refund the amount of Rs.669/- to the complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- and as litigation cost.  Thus the issues No.2 and 3 are also accordingly answered.

            In the result the complainant is allowed in part directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.669/- to complainant along with Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default the amount of Rs.669/- carries 9% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.  Failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act.  After the said proceedings the opposite party is at liberty to take back the delivered watch from the complainant.

Exts.

A1- Conformation order dated 10/08/2018

A2- Lawyer notice dated 29/09/2018

A3- Postal receipt dated 01/10/2018

Pw1-Complainant

Sd/                                                                                            Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                 MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar