IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 31^st day of January, 2020

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member 

Sri. K.M.  Anto, Member

C C No. 144/2019 (filed on 03/09/2019)

Petitioner                                          :         Rajus K. Jose,

                                                                   Kallidikkyil House,

                                                                   Monippally P.O.

                                                                   Kottayam – 686 636.

                                                                             Vs.                            

Opposite party                                  :    1) TATA CLi Q

                                                                   24 Homi Mody Street,

                                                                   Bombay House,

                                                                   Mumbai – 400001.

                                                               2)  Tata Unistore Limited,

                                                                   1^st Floor, empire Plaza 2,

                                                                   Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg,

                                                                   Chandan Nager, 

                                                                   Vikhrali West, Mumbai,

                                                                   Maharashtra – 400083.

                                                              3)   Trents Limited,

                                                                 Himayal NGR HYD Dr.Samantha E,

                                                                   Next to Minerva Coffee House,

                                                                   Himayat Nagar, Telangana,

                                                                    Hyderabad – 500029.

                                                               4) E KART Logistics,

                                                                   Bridge Manage Court,

                                                                   First Floor No.III,

                                                                   Koramangala Industrial Layout,

                                                                   Banglore – 560095.

                                                                   Karnataka.

                                                          O  R  D  E  R

Sri. Manulal V.S. President

                The case of the complainant is as follows.

                The complainant has ordered a Lenovo Fitness Band Hwo2 Plus Black smart watch through online shopping application named as Tata Cli Q.                             The product was delivered on 19/08/19 through Ekart Logistics and the sister of the complainant received the delivery from the Ekart Logistics on payment of Rs.1,999/-.  The sister and the complainant inspected the pack, which was seen that there is only a paper packet instead of smart watch.  Thus the complainant contacted delivery boy of the Ekart Logistics and then he advised the complainant to return the product through the Tata CliQ application.  But in the night, the complainant received a product delivery confirmation from the Tata Cli Q shopping application.   The complainant had sent a photo of the said items to the Tata CliQ as per the direction of the customer care service person of the Tata CliQ.  The customer care service person of the Tata CliQ expressed their regret and assured the complainant that they will solve the problem within a short period.  After 2 days, the customer service person contacted the complainant and told that there is no latches on the part of them regarding the delivery of the product ordered by the complainant and they closed the complaint register by the complainant.  The above said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.  The complainant had suffered much loss due to the act of deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties.

          Though notice was served to all the opposite parties opposite parties did not care to appear before the Forum and contest their case.

          In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Ext.A1 to A3 series and   MO1 were marked.

          On perusal of complaint and evidence on record, we would like to frame the following points for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties?
2. Relief and Cost?

Point No.1 and 2

For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.1 and 2

together.

          The complainant had ordered a Lenovo fitness band HWO2 plus black smart watch on 16/08/2019 through the Tata CliQ online shopping application in the condition of cash on delivery.  On 19/09/2019, the complainant received the product from the delivery boy of the 4^th opposite party.  Ext.A1 is the invoice issued by 1^st opposite party for the price of Lenovo fitness band HWO2 plus black smart watch.  The complainant has received the delivery of the packet from the delivery boy of the 4^th opposite party on payment of Rs.1,999/-.  The specific case of the complainant is that the 1^st opposite party sent a paper packet affixing the picture of Barbie uno doll.  MO1 is the packet, which has been received by the complainant through the 4^th opposite party.  On realizing the fact, the complainant lodged a complaint through the customer care centre of the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A3 series is the e-mail communication between the complainant and customer care division of the 1^st opposite party.  On perusal of Ext.A3 (C), we can see that one Rajesh K, Electronics Return Team of the 1^st opposite party sent a message to the complainant to inform that the complaint is in progress and they will contact the complainant as soon as possible.  Ext.A3(a) is the message from the electronic message team of the 1^st opposite party stating that as per the investigation went through the seller, the 1^st opposite party has ‘delivered the product post quality check and intact condition and the complaint of the complainant is closed’.  On perusal of Ext.A3 series, we can see that the complainant had registered a complaint regarding the non delivery of the product for which he has ordered and spent his money to the 1^st opposite party.  Neither in Ext.A2 or A3, the 1^st opposite party has denied the delivery of play card bearing picture of Barbie doll instead of a  Lenovo fitness band HWO2 plus black smart watch.  As discussed earlier, on perusal of MO1, we can see that the packet of play card having picture of Barbie uno doll.  From the evaluation of the available evidence, we would find that the 1^st opposite party has sent a packet of play cards instead of Lenovo fitness band HWO2 plus black smart watch for which they have received the payment of Rs.1,999/- from the complainant.  The 1^st opposite party has committed unfair trade practice by the delivery of an unuseful product other than the products which they have offered in their advertisement.  Therefore we are in the opinion that the complainant is entitled to recover Rs.1,999/- from the 1^st opposite party, which is paid by him to the opposite party as the price of the Lenovo fitness band HWO2 plus black smart watch.  The complainant had suffered much loss and mental agony due to the deceitful act of the opposite party by delivering the product other than which he has ordered.  We are in the opinion, 1^st opposite party is liable to compensate the mental agony suffered by the complainant.

          In the circumstances, we allow the complaint and pass the following Orders,

1. The 1^st opposite party is hereby directed to deliver the Lenovo fitness band HWO2 plus black smart watch to the complainant or in alternate pay of Rs.1,999/- (Rupees One Thousand Nine hundred and ninety nine only) to the complainant as the price of the same.

2. The 1^st opposite party is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.

3. The 1^st opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date

of receipt of Order.  If not complied as directed, the award amount will carry 9% interest from the date of receipt of Order till realization.

                   Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,

corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 31^st day of January, 2020. 

Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-

Smt. Bindhu R.  Member   Sd/-​

Sri. M.K. Anto, Member     Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

A1  :  Copy of product package cover dtd.16/08/19

A2  :  Printout of product details

A3 series : Printout of e-mail communication between the complainant

       and 1^st opposite party (7 nos.)

Court Ext.

MO1  :  paper packet affixing the picture of Barbie uno doll.

                                                                                                By Order

                                                                                    Senior Superintendent