DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 16TH day of September 2023.
Filed on: 02/02/2023
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N
C.C No. 70/2023
COMPLAINANT
Sreejith KT, H.No 20/1432A, Kultathiparambil House, Kuttathiparambil Road, Palluruthy, Koch-682000.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
AMAZONE ONLINE RETAIL STORE
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant is filing this complaint against Amazon and its respective pick-up agencies regarding the purchase and return of an HP laptop. The complainant purchased the laptop on October 23, 2022, and it was delivered on October 28, 2022. However, the laptop was found to be non-functional and could not be turned on. The complainant attempted to charge it for a day, but the issue persisted.
A service request for home service of the laptop was raised, and an appointment was scheduled for October 30, 2022. The service engineer attempted to contact the complainant once but labelled it as "Customer not reachable" and requested a reschedule. The complainant reluctantly rescheduled the call for "Return and Refund," with an appointment on November 2. Dissatisfied with the service engineer's attitude, the complainant contacted Amazon's customer service and lodged a complaint. During the call, the complainant requested an immediate pick-up due to concerns about credit card bills.
A pick-up of the laptop was arranged, though the exact date is uncertain (either October 30 or 31, 2022). Despite this, the return request made online for November 2 is still pending, and the refund has not been processed. The complainant resides in Saudi Arabia and had their mother return the device to the pick-up agent, who was carrying an Amazon bag and arrived on a bike.
The complainant is requesting prompt resolution of the refund issue.
2) Notice
The complainant initially provided an incomplete address to the Commission when filing a complaint for sending a notice to the opposite party. Consequently, on June 21, 2023, the Commission issued a notice to the complainant, to furnish the complete address of the opposite party. As Per the endorsement from the Postal Department, the complainant was indeed provided with the intimation, but the postal item was not received by the complainant. Consequently, the Postal Department returned the postal item to the Commission.
Top of Form
3). Evidence
The complainant submitted photocopies of two documents.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
ii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iii) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant herein initiates this complaint against Amazon and its respective pick-up agencies in relation to the acquisition and subsequent return of an HP laptop.
It is noteworthy that at the time of filing the complaint, the complainant furnished an address that was found to be incomplete for the purpose of serving notice to the opposing party. In light of this, on the 21st of June, 2023, the Commission dispatched a notice to the complainant, requiring the provision of a comprehensive address for the opposite party.
As per the formal acknowledgment from the Postal Department, the complainant was duly apprised of this requirement. Regrettably, however, the postal item containing this intimation failed to reach the complainant's possession. Consequently, the Postal Department returned the aforementioned postal item to the Commission. Neither the complainant nor their authorized representative has appeared before the Commission to date.
Given these circumstances, the Commission deemed it impractical to pursue further action in this case. Accordingly, the Commission has resolved to adjudicate the complaint on its substantive merits, taking into account the available evidence and documents proffered by the complainant in this matter.
The principles of natural justice are indeed fundamental to our legal system, and one of these key principles is the right to be heard or the requirement to provide notice to the opposite party. However, if it is impossible or impractical to issue such notice to the opposite party.
In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission finds it impractical to proceed further in this case. The complainant's incomplete address and the non-receipt of the notice by the complainant pose significant hindrances to proper legal procedures.
Hence, this Commission hereby dismisses the complaint due to the absence of a complete address for the opposite party, preventing the issuance of notice to said party.
After careful consideration, the above issues have been found to be unfavorable to the complainant. The case presented by the complainant is considered to be without merit. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 16th day of September 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
uk/
