BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.15 of 2018
Date of Instt. 08.01.2018
Date of Decision: 07.01.2019
Harjinder Singh S/o Sukhjiwan Singh, R/o Ekta Enclave, VPO Virk, Teh. Phillaur District Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Banglore-560055 India through its Incharge/Prop/Manager/etc.
….….. Opposite Party
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Present: Complainant in person.
None for the OP.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he has purchased a mobile handset of Redmi 4 (Gold, 64 GB) on 12.10.2017 of Rs.9499/-, vide Invoice No.DEL2-261411 dated 12.10.2017 from OP No.1 online which was sold to Amazon India by Green Mobiles, Unit No.1, Khewat/Khata No.373/400, Mustatil No.31m, Village Taoru, Tehsil Taoru, District Mewat, on Bilaspur-Taoru Road, Haryana-122105.
2. The mobile set has some technical problem and complainant requested for refund the amount to OP No.1 and the mobile set collected by the parcel collector of OP No.1 on 23.10.2017, vide refund order 402-0204745-4296370. The refund amount of Rs.9499/- not credited to the account of the complainant even after various requests made by complainant to the OP No.1. The OP No.1 assured the complainant again and again that the amount will be credited in the account of the complainant within 5-7 days, but all in vain and as such, the act and conduct of the OP is negligent, deficient in service as well as unfair trade practice, whereby complainant suffered a lot of mentally as well as physically and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to refund the price amount of the mobile i.e. Rs.9499/- along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and legal fee of Rs.2000/-.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared through its counsel and filed detailed reply, wherein took preliminary submission that the real facts are that the complainant had indeed contacted the customer care of the answering OP and informed about some technical problems being faced by him in his mobile phone purchased by him and after following the due process, the complainant was asked by the answering OP to return the mobile handset along with the entire accessories and box. Thereafter, the complainant sent the postal receipt of the returned dispatched order and the answering OP credited the shipping charges to him. However, upon receipt of the return package sent by the complainant, it was found that the complainant has infact sent an “Empty Box” and therefore, the answering OP did not proceed with refunding the amount. The said fact was duly conveyed to the complainant, but he was unable to give any reasonable explanation to the same and further averred that the OP is not directly involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. The OP is only a facilitator for sale of the product through its website and further took some preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall within the definition of 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act and further averred that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and then on merits, Para No.2 of the complaint is replied in a manner that it is matter of record and needs no reply and further submitted that the complainant has sent empty box back to the OP and due to that reason, the refund was not initiated till date. The other facts as elaborated in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-16 and closed the evidence.
5. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Sundaram Ex.OPA along with documents Ex.O-1 to Ex.O-3 and closed the evidence and when case was fixed for argument, none has appeared on behalf of the OP.
6. We have heard the complainant in person and also gone through the case file very minutely.
7. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased a mobile handset of Redmi 4 Gold, 64 GB on 12.10.2017 for Rs.9499/- and there is no dispute that some defect was occurred in the mobile phone and the same was returned by the complainant to the OP, but the OP submitted that the OP received only empty box and due to that reason, the refund process was not initiated and OP also alleged that the fact in regard to receiving of empty box has been also conveyed to the complainant, but there is no document produced on the file by the OP, where from we can ascertain that any intimation regarding receiving of empty box had been given to the complainant. So, it is only oral plea taken by the complainant, which is not acceptable.
8. Moreover, there are so many email messages sent by the OP in reply to the email message of the complainant, whereby the OP gave assurance on each occasion that the refund will be made to the complainant within a few days, for reference these emails are Ex.C-6, Ex.C-7, Ex.C-9, Ex.C-10, Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-13. The aforesaid emails of the OP did not show any reference regarding receiving of empty box. So, the plea taken by the OP first time in the written statement seems to be a fabricated, self made and concocted one, just to deprive the complainant from taking a refund of the mobile set. So, accordingly, we find that the complainant is entitled to get refund from the OP along with compensation and litigation expenses.
9. Further, we have also considered the plea taken by the OP that the complainant is not a consumer as he did not pay any price amount to the OP, but this fact is not acceptable because as per Invoice Ex.C-1, the payment was made directly to the OP and therefore, the complainant is a consumer qua the purchase of the mobile from the OP. The OP has also took a plea that the OP is not involved for the sale of the product rather the OP provide a website as a platform for communication, to sale and purchase of the product of different companies to the public. Though, the OP is a platform for communication and sale of the product of different companies, but in the present case, the OP itself admitted that the mobile in question was got received back by the OP from the complainant on the assurance that the price will be refunded, that assurance has been given through email, which has been already discussed. So, the facts of this case are over some and different nature, therefore, in the instant complaint, the OP is liable to refund the amount.
10. So for the concern of jurisdiction of this Forum as challenged by the OP is related, the same is not acceptable nor any effective argument put forth by the learned counsel for the OP because none was appeared at the time of argument and moreover, the complainant received the mobile phone at the place, where he filed the instant complaint, therefore, we are of the opinion that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
11. From the above detailed discussion, it has become clear that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed, so accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to refund the price amount of mobile i.e. Rs.9499/- along with compensation of Rs.7000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.3000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jyotsna Thatai Karnail Singh
07.01.2019 Member President
