DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SMT. VIDYA.A., MEMBER.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date Of Filing: 01.07.2024.
CC/274/2024
Sinuprasad.U.K, - Complainant
Kottiyode House, Verkoli PO,
Polpully-678 552.
(Party-In-Person)
Vs
Thulasi Enterprises, -Opposite Party
4/549, Annamalai Nagar, Hosur,
Begepalli PO, Krishnagiri (dist.),
Hosur (Taluk), Tamilnadu.
(Ex-parte)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant.
The complainant placed order for purchasing a REDMI 12 5G mobile phone from the opposite party on 10.05.2024. On 14.05.2024, he received the parcel from the opposite party under VPP service against the payment of Rs.1,575/-. When the parcel was opened, it was found that the cover was containing a duplicate power bank with REDMI label, instead of mobile phone. When the matter was informed to the opposite party, they informed that the item received is a free gift and the original product ordered will be delivered shortly. As there was no further response from the opposite party, this complaint is filed seeking refund of the cost of the phone, Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,500/- towards cost.
2. The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. But the notice was returned undelivered with endorsement “REFUSED”. Hence their name was called in open court and set ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts.A1 & A2 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the screenshot of the parcel tracking in India Post and Ext.A2 is the copy of sticker affixed on the parcel received.
4. The exhibits mentioned above clearly prove that the opposite party had sent a parcel to the complainant as specified in the complaint. As per the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, the complainant received a power bank instead of the mobile phone.
5. As the opposite party refused to accept the notice and take part in the proceedings, this Commission is bound to pass orders on the basis of proof affidavit filed and documents placed on record from the side of the complainant.
6. Not delivering the product ordered and delivering another product instead is a definite case of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
7. In the result, the complaint is allowed ordering the following as a prima facie case is proved against the opposite party:
1) The opposite party is directed to refund the cost of mobile phone Rs.1,575/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from 10.05.2024 till the date of payment.
2) The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service.
3) The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as cost of litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of the order till the date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 18th day of November, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V,
PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K,
MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: The copy of the screenshot of the parcel received.
Ext.A2: The copy of sticker affixed on the parcel received.
Documents marked from the side of opposite parties:NIL
Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL
Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL
Cost : 1,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
