District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No. 610/2022.
Date of Institution:11.11.2022.
Date of Order:27.03.2023.
Rajnish Kumar S/o Shri Sushil Kumar R/o H.No. 372, Shramik Vihar, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8th floor, 261/, Dr. Raj Kumar road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore – 560 055, Karnataka, India.
…Opposite party
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Complainant in person.
Opposite party exparte vide order dated 15.02.2023.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant had got a packet from the side of opposite party on dated 18.10.2022 and after opening the said packet in front of Video Recording done by the one colleague of the complainant and complainant found that one box of vivo Pro 17 were inside the said packet. Thereafter when the complainant opened the said box of vivo Pro 17 by thinking so, that the said packing was done by the opposite party and hopelessly the said phone might be in the said box but when the complainant opened the said box of vivo Pro 17 the complainant got shocked and surprised to see that one Micromax Old Model phone was inside the said box. Thereafter the complainant made a complaint at Customer care number of the opposite party. Upon which the customer care executive had assured the complainant to give their full support to resolve the matter of the complainant as well as to provide the ordered material to the complainant. When the complainant did not receive any response from the side of opposite party after the lapse of 5 days times period then the complainant again phoned to customer care number of the opposite party for the knowledge of action taken by them in this regard. Upon which the customer care execute had disclosed to the complainant that packet was intact and there was no chance for any mistake from the side of the opposite party, hence, they were unable to give any help to the complainant in this regard. The complainant tried his level best to understand the said representative of the opposite party as there was no fault on the part of the complainant and he had made the payment to opposite party for the above said product but even after that the complainant had not supplied the actual product to the complainant, so the complainant was suffering from mental tension, agony and harassment as well as suffering from financial loss but the said representative of the opposite party did not give any heed to the legitimate requests and reminders of the complainant and disconnected the phone call. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) handover Oneplus Nord 2T mobile phone to the complainant OR
b) return back the amount of Rs.29,000/- alongwith the interest @ 24% from the date of making the payment i.e. 17.10.2022 till its actual final realization to the complainant.
c) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Notice issued to opposite party on 9.1.2023 not received back either served or unserved. Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed”. Mandatory period of 30 days expired. Hence, opposite party was hereby proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.02.2023.
3. The complainant led evidence in support of his respective version.
4. We have heard complainant in person and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party–Amazon India with the prayer to: a) handover Oneplus Nord 2T mobile phone to the complainant OR b) return back the amount of Rs.29,000/- alongwith the interest @ 24% from the date of making the payment i.e. 17.10.2022 till its actual final realization to the complainant. c) pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 21,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Rajnish Kumar, Ex.C-1 – Tax invoice, Ex.C-2 – order ID 405-4051360-5123532, Ex.C-2 – whatsapp message,,Ex.C-3 – photo,
Ex.C-4 – letter to Police Commissioner.
6. There is nothing on record to disbelieve and discredit the aforesaid ex-parte evidence of the complainant. Since opposite party has not come present to contest the claim of the complainant, therefore, the allegations made in complaint by the complainant go unrebutted. From the aforesaid ex-parte evidence it is amply proved that opposite party has rendered deficient services to the complainant. Hence the complaint is allowed against opposite party.
7. Opposite party is directed to replace the mobile phone in question with a new one, subject to return the old mobile phone within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.1100/- as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment alognwith Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 27.03.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
