Surinder singh v. Vlebazaar, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant, Surinder Singh, placed an online order in the first week of March 2022 for a Pantum Laser Printer Model 6502 NW with the opposite party, Vlebazaar, and paid Rs. 10,349/- in advance using his ICICI Bank credit card. Despite payment, the product was not dispatched. The opposite party initially assured dispatch within 3-5 days by an email dated 07.04.2022 but failed to deliver the product. After repeated requests for refund starting 18.04.2022, the order was cancelled by the opposite party on 19.04.2022. Subsequent communications indicated a scheduled refund, but it was not received even after multiple follow-ups by the complainant until 09.07.2022. The complainant alleged mental agony, harassment, and financial loss, seeking refund with interest, compensation, and litigation costs.

Notice was served on the opposite party who failed to appear, leading to exparte proceedings. The complainant tendered an affidavit and documentary evidence including emails to support his claim. The commission heard arguments exparte and examined the complaint, affidavit, and annexed documents.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the opposite party committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by failing to deliver the product or refund the amount within the stipulated time.

Whether the complainant is entitled to refund with interest and compensation for mental agony and harassment under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Whether the opposite party violated the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 by not establishing an effective grievance redressal mechanism and failing to refund the amount timely.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court referred to the definition of "e-commerce" under Section 2(16) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and the Consumer Protection (E-commerce) Rules, 2020 issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs. These rules require e-commerce entities to provide business information on their platform and establish a grievance redressal mechanism to resolve complaints within one month.

The court found that the complainant had made sincere efforts to obtain either delivery or refund, supported by uncontroverted documentary evidence. The opposite party failed to respond or comply with the refund schedule, resorting to delaying tactics. This conduct constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant suffered financial loss and mental harassment due to the opposite party’s failure to fulfill its obligations.

Holding and Implications

The complaint is allowed.

The court ordered the opposite party to refund Rs. 10,349.10 to the complainant with interest at 8% per annum from the date of deposit until actual payment. Additionally, the opposite party was directed to pay a composite cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant. Compliance with the order is to be made within 30 days from receipt of the order copy.

This decision directly affects the parties by mandating refund and compensation but does not establish any new precedent beyond enforcing existing consumer protection laws and e-commerce guidelines.

Surinder singh v. Vlebazaar

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

Complaint No: 345 dated01.09.2022. Date of decision: 07.12.2022. Surinder Singh aged 70 years S/o. S. Baldev Singh, House No.32, Prakash Colony, Post Office- Raj Guru Nagar, Ludhiana-141012. Mobile No.94177-87016.

..…Complainant

• Vlebazaar, through its owner Himanshu Agarwal, Plot No.4, Numberdar Market, Grace Road, Sec. 28, Gurgaon-122002 Email id: no-reply@vlebazaar/in Support@vlebazaar.in. Customer care Phone No:+91 9026655551/76669646817.

…..Opposite party.

Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant : Sh. Surinder Singh in person. For OP : Exparte.

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1. Briefly stated, the complainant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by filing the present complaint stating therein that in the first week of March 2022, the complainant placed an online order for the purchase of Pantum (Laser Printer) Model 6502 NW, Ticket No.50905 with the opposite party (an e-commerce entity) and paid the price of Rs.10,349/- in advance to the opposite party by using his ICICI Bank credit card and order No.1495312 was allotted by the opposite party. In spite of paying the price in advance, the opposite party did not dispatch the product to the complainant. Upon enquiries, the opposite party sent an email dated 07.04.2022 (Appendix-A) stating that the item will be dispatched in 3-5 days. However, the opposite party did not deliver the product and on 18.04.2022, the complainant again sent an email (Appendix-B) requesting the opposite party to refund the amount. On the next day i.e. 19.04.2022, the order was cancelled by the opposite party vide intimation Appendix-C. On 22.04.2022, the opposite party sent an email informing the complainant regarding rescheduling of refund (Appendix-D). The complainant continued to wait for the scheduled refund till 09.07.2022 and he approached the customer care executive of the opposite party with phone No.+91 9026655551 on several times and customer care executive assured the

complainant that the refund has been initiated and put in the wallet account. Again on 25.07.2022, the complainant sent an email regarding non-receipt of the refund. He also kept calling the customer care of the opposite party on every 3-4^thday but the refund could not be materialized. The complainant stated that he also suffered agony and harassment besides financial loss due to the act and conduct of the opposite party. He prayed for refund of amount of Rs.10349.10 along with interest and compensation of Rs.90,000/- and litigation of Rs.10,000/-

2. Upon notice, the opposite party did not appear despite service and was proceed against exparte vide order dated 21.11.2022.

3. In support of her claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit as Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Appendix-A to appendix-I as copies of email dated 07.04.2022, 18.04.2022, 19.04.2022 and 26.04.2022, 25.07.2022, 19.04.2022, 25.04.2022 and 15.07.2022 respectively and closed the evidence.

4. We have heard exparte arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.

5. Section 2(16) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 provides definition of e-commerce which has been reproduced as under:-

16. "e-commerce " means buying or selling of goods or services including digital products over digital or electronic network."

Department of Consumer Affairs of Central Government has issued detailed guidelines for "e-commerce called Consumer Protection Commerce Rules, 2020 it has been provided under these rules that e-commerce entity shall provide all information related to its business on its platform and it shall also establish Consumer Grievance Redressal Mechanism which shall redress the consumer complaint within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint. It has been further stated that e-commerce entity shall not charge the consumer for cancellation of goods after making a purchase unless the e-commerce entity has to bear the charge for cancellation of goods booked. The violation of these rules will entail the action under Consumer Protection Act.

6. Admittedly, the product was purchased in the first week of March 2022 and the complainant had been representing his case firstly for delivery of the article and then for refund of the price since 07.04.2022 but the opposite party did not redress his grievance time stipulated in the guidelines and has entailed itself for the action under Consumer Protection Act.

7. Perusal of uncontroverted evidence furnished by the complainant shows that he had been sincerely making efforts first for the delivery of the printer and then for the refund of the amount. The opposite party/its representative/agent had adopted delaying tactics from the word go and it is evident that the whole ploy was hatched just to enrich dishonestly. The complainant has not only suffered financially but has undergone mental agony and harassment at the hands of the opposite party. The chronology of the events clearly shows that there is an unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

8. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite party shall refund a sum of Rs.10,349.10 to the complainant with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment. The opposite party shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra) Member Member President

Announced in Open Commission. Dated:07.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Surinder Singh Vs Vleazaar CC/22/345 Present: Complainant Sh. Surinder Singh in person. OP exparte.

The complainant closed his evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Appendix-A to Appendix-I.

Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the opposite party shall refund a sum of Rs.10,349.10 to the complainant with interest @8% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of actual payment. The opposite party shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra) Member Member President

Announced in Open Commission. Dated:07.12.2022.

Gobind Ram.

CC/22/345

Surinder singh v. Vlebazaar

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Surinder singh v. Vlebazaar

Comments