AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Viswanath, J
The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 167/2016 dated 05.07.2017.
In the Complaint Case, the Petitioner/Complainant stated that on 16.11.2015, he purchased some household articles from the Opposite Party by paying a sum of Rs.703.20, vide Bill No. 611M3118841186/M3. After payment of the bill amount "Goods Delivered" stamp was affixed on the bill and the items were delivered in a carry bag. On reaching home, when the items were verified, he found that the FREE item Wim gel worth Rs.20 was not given with Domex Bottle as offered by Hindustan Lever, the manufacturers. Thereafter, the Petitioner contacted the Respondent and insisted on delivery of the FREE item at home, referring to the "door delivery" service offered by the Respondent. On 16.11.2015, the Petitioner sent a letter to the Respondent wherein he pointed out the deficiency in service by the Opposite Party. The Complainant claimed Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the Complaint, Rs.80.75 for Domex Bottle packing charges with interest @18% and Rs.20,000/- for causing mental agony before the District Forum.
The Respondent has not appeared before the District Forum, despite service of notice. Hence, the Respondent was set ex-parte. District Forum, vide order dated 27.07.2016, partially allowed the Complaint. The Respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- towards cost and travelling expenses to the Complainant, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and for involving in unfair trade practices to the Consumer Legal Services Accounts of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum within a period two months from the date of order, failing which the Complainant was at liberty to execute the order u/s 25 or 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The District Forum held that though the Domex bottle was handed over to the Forum for the sake of the case, he can claim the cost only on returning it to the Respondent. Under these circumstances, Petitioner was not eligible for the compensation. The number of consumers for whom the Free items were not delivered is unknown and hence, instead of sanctioning compensation to the Petitioner, deposit of the compensation with the Consumer Legal Services Account would be fair.
Being aggrieved of the order passed by the District Forum, Petitioner/Complainant filed an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 05.07.2017, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner in default, as he was not present to prosecute his case.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioner filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission. Heard the Petitioner, who is present in person. He reiterated his contentions as stated above. We have also carefully gone through the evidence placed on record.
The case of the Petitioner/Complainant is that he bought some household articles from the Respondent for Rs.703/-. The free item WIM gel valued at Rs.20/-, offered to the customers by the manufacturer, Hindustan Lever, along with Domex bottle, was not delivered to the Petitioner. Evidence was adduced towards purchase of Domex 500ml. 'Goods delivered' seal was also affixed. Regarding the delivery of the Free item, no seal was there on the Bill showing its delivery. It is, therefore, inferred that free item was not delivered to the Petitioner. As the Respondent could not provide any evidence that the free item was delivered to the Petitioner, the District Forum, rightly came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent and the Petitioner was entitled to fair compensation. The District Forum partially allowed the complaint of the Petitioner after giving proper justification. District Forum ordered payment of Rs.2,500/- towards cost and traveling expenses to the Petitioner/Complainant. Since the number of consumers to whom free items were not delivered was not known, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation was ordered to be deposited in Consumer Legal Services Account of the District Forum. The Petitioner, however, was absent before the State Commission on more than one occasion thereby showing no interest in prosecuting the case. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed in default.
There is no infirmity or miscarriage of justice in the orders of the District Forum and State Commission. We see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by both the Fora and dismiss the Revision Petition.