The court upheld the District Consumer Commission's order, confirming the appellants failed to prove their claims regarding the authenticity of the product delivered.

ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

There is delay of 11 days in filing of this appeal. To condone it, an application has been filed, duly supported by affidavit. Delay in filing of this appeal stands condoned, as reasons specified in application and accompany affidavit do constitute sufficient cause.

2. Challenge in this Appeal No.1331 of 2017 has been invited by appellants/OPs No. 2 & 3 against order dated 19.09.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Rewari (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.259 of 2016, vide which complainant’s complaint has been allowed.

3. Factual matrix: Complainant ordered Samsung Power Bank 16800 Mah on 31.05.2016 from OP No. 1. It was delivered to him by OP No. 1 and he paid Rs.548/- including its cost and delivery charges. As per plea; OP No. 1 delivered power bank 20800 Mah instead of Power Bank No. 16800 and no guarantee/warranty card has been found in parcel. It is alleged that he visited showroom of OP No. 2 and came to know that product delivered by OP No. 1 is not genuine. He visited customer care centre of OP No. 2 and authorized person of customer care declared subject product as fake. On 03.07.2016, he made complaint to OP No. 1, who had given assurance to solve his problem within 24 to 48 hours. As per plea; OP neither replaced fake product nor returned the amount till date and by alleging deficiency in their service; complainant filed complaint for issuance directions against OPs to replace fake Samsung Power Bank and to deliver a brand new genuine Samsung Power Bank; to pay him Rs.50,000/- on account of mental, physical and economical pain and harassment.

4. None had appeared on behalf of OP No.1 in proceedings of complaint and it was proceeded against ex-parte vide learned District Consumer Commission’s order dated 23.08.2016.

5. OPs No. 2 & 3 raised contest in complaint. In its defense; various preliminary objections i.e. complaint being baseless, devoid of merits, without containing cause of action, bad for non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary/proper parties, territorial jurisdiction, there being concealment of facts and complaint being filed with mischievous intention and thus abuse of process of law have been taken. There is no privity of contract between complainant/OP No.1 and OP No. 2 & 3. OP No. 1 is not authorized dealer of OP No.2 and OP No. 2 is not responsible for any misconduct of OP No. 1. It is pleaded that no details were found in online system of company which means complainant has never approached OP No. 2.

6. Parties led their respective evidence (Oral as well as documentary). On analyzing same; learned District Consumer Commission has allowed the complaint and directed OPs to refund price of subject product i.e. Rs.548/- to complainant subject to return of product by him. Rs.10,000/- has also been awarded as litigation expenses to complainant.

7. Feeling aggrieved, OPs No. 2 & 3 have filed this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length.

8. On behalf of appellant, it is contended by learned counsel that impugned order dated 19.09.2017 is illegal, both on factual and legal front. Appellants do not manufacture power banks of specification so mentioned in complaint of either capacity i.e. 16800 MAH or 20800 MAH. Thus as per contention, subject project is fake. Further it is contended that complainant has alleged that he purchased the subject project at Rs.548/- whereas cost of subject product is around Rs.2,999/- onwards. Lastly, it is contended that higher compensation has been awarded by