Delhi

North

CC/51/2024

JOGINDER KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAZON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

01 May 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.51/2024

In the matter of

Joginder Kumar

S/o Sh./Ram Prakash

R/o E-36, Ganesh Nagar, Pandav Nagar

Complex, Delhi-110092

Also at:-

 Ch.No.404, Civil Wing

Tis Hazari Courts

Delhi-110054                                              …      Complainant

                                                          Versus

M/s. Amazon India Private Ltd.

Situated at –the Registered head Office

8^th Floor, Brigade Gateway

26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road

Banglore, Karnataka-560055                       ...       Opposite Party No. 1

 

Gunasekaran B

(Amazon Seller)

F2-46, Periyar Nagar/Main Road

Virudhachalam Cuddalore

Tamil Nadu-606001                                    ...       Opposite Party No. 2

 

Delhivery

(Courier Services)

Plot-5, Sector-44

Gurgaon, Haryana-122001                          ...       Opposite Party No. 3

 

ORDER

01.05.2024

Present:       Ms Nishtha Magan, Ld. Advocate for Complainant

(Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President)

1. On the last date of hearing we have heard the arguments of the Complainant on the admissibility of this complaint. By way of this complaint, the Complainant, who is also an Advocate practicing primarily in Tis Hazari Curt Complex, has alleged that the product ordered by him on the website of the Amazon India (OP-1) which was sold by Mr. Gunasekaran B (OP-2) and was to be delivered by M/s Delhivery (OP-3) was not delivered despite complainant making the payment.
2. The complainant states that he ordered one “Premsons Head Scalp Massager (No batteries required) B016F5CVL4 (YU-RO5W-KTS1) on 29/12/2023. But the same was not delivered although the website of the OP-1 showed that the product was delivered on 04/01/2024. Accordingly, the complainant raised the dispute with the Customer Care of OP-1 and has also sent a legal notice to OP-1.
3. Subsequently, OP-1 has acknowledged the error and refunded the money back in the account of the complainant on 27/02/2024. Thereafter, the complainant has filed this complaint seeking directions to the OPs to deliver the product and also to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- as well as litigation amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant for the deficiency in services.
4. We have heard the arguments of the complainant and we are of the opinion that once the OPs have acknowledged the error and have made the refund, the deficiency of services ceases to exist. Further, when the complainant has received the payment back, he also ceases to become the Consumer as the primary requirement for invoking the Consumer Protection Act is to establish the fact that the complainant is a consumer. For coming into the purview of the condition of the Consumer there must be a payment- Full or part or any promise of payment. Once the amount so paid is refunded back and the Complainant has accepted the refund without any protest, he ceases to be a Consumer as there is neither any payment- full or part, nor any promise to pay. Even in the complaint filed before this Commission, the Complainant has prayed for a direction to the OPs to deliver the product in question but has not made any promise to make payment for the same.
5. There is another aspect that requires deliberation. In this complaint, the Complainant has additionally prayed for a direction to the OPs to pay him a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental and physical harassment, pain and agony due to “deficiency, unfair and mal practice” and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on account of cost of litigation. The Complainant has not filed any document along with the complaint to show that he has incurred any cost for filing this complaint. He has also not justified his litigation expenses by filing any payment receipts for his payments to any of his lawyers, whose Vakalatnama has been filed.
6. For harassment, mental pain and agony, there are no specific averments or proof of exact injury or harm inflicted upon the Complainant. The allegation of harm and mental agony is very vague and not specific. It is a settled law that the Complainant filed under CPA 2019, is meant for saving consumer from being exploited and it is not meant for windfall or making purchaser millionaire overnight. CPA, 2019 is welfare legislation and is not meant to be a tool to wrong gains. The compensation sought by the Complainant is dis-appropriately high and the Complainant has not given any proper justification for the same. In our opinion, prayer for high compensation and cost without proper justification by the Complainant herein is not correct and is to be discouraged. For this, reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in the matter of Dr. Uttam Kumar Samanta vs. Vodafone East Limited [FA 847/2017 decided on 05.10.2018]. However, considering young age of the Complainant, who is also in the noble profession of an Advocate, we are refraining from passing any adverse order on this aspect against the Complainant.
7. For the reasons explained above, we do not find any merit in the case. Hence the complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit. Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Office is also directed to return all original documents filed by the Complainant, if any, after keeping photo copies of the same in the record. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.
8. Ordered accordingly.

 

 

___________________________

Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar, President

 

 

___________________________

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member

 

 

___________________________

Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member