DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 95 of 2020.

 

 

1. Mr. Kushal Deb,

S/O. Sri Narayan Chandra Deb,

Permanent residence of Radhanagar, Agartala West, 

Presently residing at Kalilibari Road, 

Durjoynagar, Near Nursing Institute, Pin-799009,

District- West Tripura. ..........................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited,

Having its Registered Office at Brigade Gateway, 

8th  Floor, 26/1 Dr. Rajkumar,

Malleshwaram(W), Bangalore- 560055, 

Karnataka, India.

 

2. SAVEX TECHNOLOGIES PRIOVATE LIMITED 

C/O. Kuehne Nagel Pvt. Ltd.., Dag No.8-31, Dag No.414-425 LR,

Khatian No.871, 798, Mouza-Simla null Satghara, 

JL No.17-18, Shimla, Sreerampore, Hooghly, 

West Bengal-712203. 

 

3. Head Post Master, 

Post Office Chowmuhani, Agartala, 

District-West Tripura, Pin-799001. ...................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOURAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : In-person. 

 

For the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 : Sri Amritlal Saha,

  Sri Sunil Bhaumik,

  Sri Kajal Nandi. 

  Advocates. 

 

For the O.P. No.3 : Sri Indrajit Biswas,     Advocate. 

 

 

ORDER  DELIVERED  ON: 25/01/2023.

 

 

O R D E R

The complainant Shri Kushal Deb,  set the law in motion by presenting the petition U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 complaining deficiency of service committed by the O.Ps.  

  This complaint was filed on 21/11/2020 by the Complainant, Shri Kushal Deb arraying the O.Ps named above and sought the following reliefs:-

(i) A direction to O.P. Nos.1 & 2 to refund Rs.6,790/- with interest @ 18% P.A. 

(ii) Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment along with other admissible reliefs. 

  The allegations as depicted in the complaint are that on 28/10/2018 the Complainant booked a Samsung On 7 Pro black with the O.P. No.1 for Rs.6,790/- and the amount was paid by Debit Card which the O.P. No.1 confirmed by mail and expected date of delivery was 08/11/2018. 

On 14/11/2018 the Complainant received a mail from O.P. No.1 that “your package has been successfully delivered”, although the Complainant did not receive the ordered item. As such on 15/11/2018 the Complainant attempted to solve the issue through mobile application but failed. However, on the same date the Complainant talked with the customer care of the O.P. No.1 who informed the Complainant that the package could not be delivered due to nonspecific address of the Complainant and also advised the Complainant to contact the Postal Department at Agartala AERODORME. Hence, on the same date the Complainant tried to contact the office of the Postal Department at Ushabazar, Agartala and being advised by the Ushabazar Office went to Durjoyanagar but failed to find out any office at Durjoyanagar on that day. However, after 3-4 days one person of Durjoyanagar Office informed the Complainant that the package was returned to the Agartala AERODORME. 

On 22/11/2018 the help desk of O.P. No.1 provided one email ID and the Complainant immediately send one mail that although the shipment tracking shows that the package was delivered but it was not delivered. On the same day at about 03.11 P.M. someone from amazon.in namely Pallavi replied that they felt sorry but can not take further action as 10 days had already lapsed since the Complainant received the product.   

 

2. On the other hand O.Ps. contested the case by filling written statement.

          The O.P. No.1 filed written objection with separate petition to delete the name No.1. In the written objection particularly in Para-4, the O.P. No.1 raised objections that the complaint is barred by limitation as product was purchased on 28/10/2018 and the complaint was filed on 21/11/2020 i.e. after two years from the date of cause of action and that the complaint even if maintainable O.P. No.2 is responsible to pay the reliefs to the Complainant. 

      The O.P. Nos. 2 did not appear and the case proceeded ex-parte against O.P. No.2 vide order dated 12/01/2022 and O.P. No.3 is really not a necessary party in this case as the Postal Department is no way involved in delivering the item to the complainant. And in their W.S. also O.P. No.3 denied any liability. 

             

3. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

The Complainant as PW-I and submitted his evidence on affidavit. He has produced 05 documents under a Firisti dated 21/11/2020 & he also produced 01 document under a Firisti dated 25/08/2021. The documents are namely Invoice dated 28/10/2018, Mail dated 29/10/2018 by amazon.in, Mail dated 14/11/2018 by amazon.in, Mail dated 22/11/2018 by Kushal Deb, Mail dated 22/11/2018 by amazon.in & Status report of postal acknowledgment vide No.EE406427773IN dated 24/08/2021.   

The O.Ps. did not adduce any evidence.   

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:- 

4. The following points emerged for discussion and decision:-

  (I) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

      (II) Whether the Complainant purchased the product from O.P. No.1 and O.P. No.1 was liable to deliver the product to the Complainant and there was deficiency on service on the part of the O.Ps?

(III) Who is liable to return the price to the Complainant and pay compensation if any? 

 

5. A written argument submitted on 06/12/2022 by the Learned Advocate of the O.P. No.1. The O.Ps remained absent. 

 

6. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

Point No. (i) - On perusal of the averments it is luminous that the product was purchased on 28/10/2018. On 22/11/2018 at 03.11 P.M. the Complainant received a mail from amazon.in that “Hello, I am sorry to know that you have not received the Samsung on 7 pro (black 2 GB Ram, 16 GB Storage) because more than 10 days have passed since you received this item, we can no longer take any action” meaning thereby on 22/11/2018 the Petitioner was finally informed by the O.P. No.1 that nothing could be done. Hence, cause of action had arisen on 22/11/2018 but the Complainant filed this complaint on 21/11/2020. Therefore, U/S 69 of the Act, 2019 the Complainant filed this complaint within two calendar years. Besides, it is known to all concerned that there was COVID Pandemic period. Hence, we find no force behind the pleading for O.P. No.1 that the complaint is barred by limitation. This point is decided affirmatively in favour of the Complainant. 

 

Points No.-ii). - It is common knowledge that Amazon is a online market place and orders are delivered using common courier services. In the present case the Complainant had no relationship whatsoever with the O.P. No.2. The tax invoice / bill of supply / cash memo was also delivered to the Complainant by the O.P. No.1 only. Therefore, there was arrangement between O.P. Nos.1 & 2 and the Complainant had no business in such arrangement. Therefore, the O.P. No.1 was supposed to deliver the product to the Complainant as per the specification. Other conditions of Amazon as pleaded in the W.S. are not relevant for the fact that the allegations of the complaint is not defective product etc. In fact the purchased product was not delivered to the complainant. The delivery boy may have done the mischief that without delivering the product he had shown it to have been delivered. But Amazon, the O.P. No.1 has to control the delivery boy. So, there has been deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. No.1. And O.P. No.1 had taken no step to cure such deficiency in the later stage also. Rather, has taken arbitrary stand with a view to hide their deficiency in service.  

 

Points No. iii). - We are also inclined to decide that in view of decision arrived at in points No.1 & 2 and particularly decisions of Point No.2, the O.P. No.1 is liable pay reliefs to the Complainant. 

Considering the non action of O.P. No.1 and subsequently feeble and unacceptable stand of the O.P. No.1, it is ordered that the O.P. No.1 shall pay the following reliefs to the Complainant: (a) Refund the amount of Rs.6,790/-, (b) Pay compensation to the Complainant for sum of Rs.50,000/- which includes compensation for harassment, litigation costs & interest on Rs.6,790/-. 

 

However, O.P. No.1 shall have to pay interests @ 7.5% P.A. from today till the date of actual payment on the entire sum to the Complainant unless the O.P. No.1 pays Rs.6,790/- and compensation of Rs.50,000/- within 30 days from date of this order.       

      Supply a certified copy of the order to both the parties free of cost.    

 

 Announced.

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.