DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 31st day of January, 2023
Filed on: 25/05/2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C.No.268/2022
COMPLAINANT
Balachandran T , S/o.M Kuttisankaran House No 9, Lane No 32, Janatha Road, Vytilla, Ernakulam-682019.
(party-in-person)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
M/S Real More International Pvt.Ltd., (KK Sanjeev - Managing Director) Pipe line road, Near Govt. LP School,Padivattom Post, Ernakulam- 682025.
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 had ordered 100 kg of pepper and one kg cumin in two orders from the opposite party via vide order no. 2, 4, that it is to be mentioned here that items the complainant had paid the opposite party the full amount of Rs.21,800/- and Rs. 20,895/-, vide Invoice no. W2, Date: 10/12/2021. The representative of opposite party Mr. Ashik, claimed as CEO of the company and Ms. Anju, claimed as accountant of the company had provided Lorry receipts through WhatsApp and claimed that the item was dispatched. On further tracking it is found that the lorry receipts provided by the company was fake and no item dispatched and the complainant’s customer never received the item. The complainant had reported this matter to the opposite party and requested several times to either provide the product or to refund the full paid amount of Rs.21,800/- and Rs. 20,895/-, but the complainant had not received any kind of fruitful result from the opposite party, and the opposite party completely neglected the complainant request leading on to no satisfactory response, the complainant was not been getting good response from the opposite party regarding the same given the unjustified, unacceptable and unreasonable delay in providing the same from the opposite party and intentional lack of cooperation from the opposite party as a consequence of which, the complainant has suffered severe and grave loss and harassment. The act of negligence committed by the opposite party the complainant had requested the opposite party several times for providing the said service but the complainant has got no support from the opposite party to resolve this issue. Due to the malafide act of the opposite party and conduct the complainant got duped the hard-earned money of the complainant which is hindering the complainant in an erroneous way as the complainant has been facing. The complainant states that being deprived of the proper and facilitated procurement he again intimated the opposite party by way of the telephonic conversation in order to solve the said issue, however the executive of the opposite party have acted like flogging of a dead horse in lieu of providing the proper services to the complainant and in lieu of providing the constructive reply to him till date. The complainant visited the opposite party multiple times and found locked. The above-mentioned dispute clearly states that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party and they are adopting an Unfair Trade Practice in order to dupe the hard-earned money of the complainant wherein the opposite party have intentionally provided the de novo dreadful and deceitful service to the complainant and has not provided the proper and facilitated services towards him which has caused him unnecessary noetic agony and stress. The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the Opposite party to Refund the full paid amount of Rs. 21,800/- and Rs. 20,895/- to the complainant Rs. 42,695/-, compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for the deficiency in service, loss of business and mental harassment and agony and the costs of the proceedings of the complaint.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The notice sent to the opposite party retuned as “unclaimed”. Hence, the service of the notice considered as ‘deemed to be served’. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte.
3). Evidence
The complainant had filed 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1- to A-5.
1) Exbt. A1- Aadhaar Card of the Complainant
2) Exbt.A2 series (i) - A copy of Purchase order and Payment Details
Exbt.A2 series (ii)- Tax Invoice provided by Realmore International Pvt Ltd
Exbt.A2 series (iii)- Paid receipt screen shot
Exbt.A2 series (iv)-Purchase order No 2
Exbt.A2 series (v) - Paid receipt screen shot
3) Exbt.A3 series (i) - Purchase order No 3
Exbt.A3 series (ii) - LR Copy provided by Realmore International Pvt Ltd against Purchase order No 2.
Exbt.A3 series (iii) - LR Copy provided by Real more International Pvt Ltd against Purchase order No 3.
4) Exbt.A4- Legal notice copy of Advocate dated 16/04/2022.
5) Exbt.A5- India post tracking of the legal notice returned undelivered showing door locked in multiple attempts by the post office.
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, the complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complaint is regarding to provide the product or to refund the full paid amount of Rs.42,695/.
According to Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, "CONSUMER" means any person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant produced Copies of Purchase order and Payment Details issued by the opposite party (Exhibit A-I and A-2). Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
The complainant has produced 5 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-5.
The complainant had ordered 100 kg of pepper and 1kg cumin from the O.P and he paid Rs.21,800/- and Rs. 20,895/- as per Exhibit A-1 and A-2. The representative of opposite party had provided the complainant a Lorry receipts through WhatsApp and claimed that the item was dispatched. On further tracking it is found that the lorry receipts provided by the company was fake and no item dispatched and the complainant customer never received the item. The complainant had reported this matter to the opposite party and requested several times to either provide the product or to refund the full paid amount of Rs 42,695/, but the complainant has not received any response from the opposite party.
The complainant submitted that the evidence, in this case,
The legal notice issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party dated 16/04/2022. The legal notice returned undelivered showing ‘door locked’ as per proof of delivery of Postal Department.
To this communications, there was no response from the Opposite Party(Exhibit A-4). Again, the complainant visited the opposite party multiple times to which also the Opposite Party did not respond. This will show the ill attitude of the opposite party toward its customers. This also amounts to a deficiency in service.
The complainant who had availed the services of the opposite party were made to suffer due to the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part.
We have also noticed that Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party but did not file their version. Hence the opposite party was set ex-parte. The complainant had produced 5 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-5. All in support of his case. But the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-prate order passed against it.
The opposite party’ conscious failure to file their written versions in spite of their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. The Hon’ble NC held a similar stance in its order cited 2017(4) CPR page 590 (NC).
It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary and unjustified act of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint was filed. Despite due service, none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party, hence, they proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 18.10.2022.
The Opposite Party has inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of Opposite Party in failing to provide the complainant’s desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
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:
(i) The opposite Party shall pay Rs. 42,695/ (Rs. 21,800/- + Rs. 20,895/) to the Complainant being the cost of article ordered and thus the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party.
(ii) The opposite Party shall pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental harassment and agony suffered by the Complainant.
(iii) The opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs.3,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide above (i) ,and (ii) shall attract interest @5.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission dated this 31st day of January, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Exhibits
1) Exbt. A1- Aadhaar Card of the Complainant
2) Exbt.A2 series (i) - A copy of Purchase order and Payment Details
Exbt.A2 series (ii)- Tax Invoice provided by Realmore International Pvt Ltd
Exbt.A2 series (iii)- Paid receipt screen shot
Exbt.A2 series (iv)-Purchase order No 2
Exbt.A2 series (v) - Paid receipt screen shot
3) Exbt.A3 series (i) - Purchase order No 3
Exbt.A3 series (ii) - LR Copy provided by Realmore International Pvt Ltd against Purchase order No 2.
Exbt.A3 series (iii) - LR Copy provided by Real more International Pvt Ltd against Purchase order No 3.
4) Exbt.A4- Legal notice copy of Advocate dated 16/04/2022.
5) Exbt.A5- India post tracking of the legal notice returned undelivered showing door locked in multiple attempts by the post office.
Opposite party’s Exhibits - Nil
C.C. No.268/2022
Order dated 31.01.2023
