Haryana

StateCommission

A/595/2016

MANIK SETHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAZON INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

29 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      595 of 2016

Date of Institution:      01.07.2016

Date of Decision :       29.07.2016

 

Manik Sethi son of Mr. Ajay Sethi, resident of House No.43, Ram Nagar, Opposite Housing Board Colony, Ambala Cantt, Haryana.

                                      Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      Amazon India, Registered Office Address; Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, India.

2.      Gadget Bucket Online Marketing LLP, Plot No.1660, Next to Ashirwad Building, Ahmedabad Street, Carnac Bunder, Masjid (East), Mumbai -400009.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

 

Present:               Manik Sethi-Appellant in person.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL)

 

Manik Sethi-complainant-appellant, a student, did Online Shopping of Xiaomi MI Band Wrist and Fitness (for short, ‘Band’) through Amazon India-opposite party No.1.  The price of the band was Rs.1276/-.  On May 30^th, 2016, the band was delivered to the complainant on his address at Ambala.  He made payment of Rs.1276/-.  After making the payment, the complainant verified price of the band from Xiaomi India Customer Services.  As per Xiaomi India Customer Services, MRP of item was Rs.799/- vide email Annexure A-9.  Thereafter, complainant asked Amazon India to refund the amount of Rs.477/- but it was denied by them.  Hence, he filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (for short ‘the Act’) before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (for short ‘the District Forum’) seeking refund of the amount as well as compensation.   

2.      The District Forum vide order dated June 08^th, 2016, dismissed the complaint on the short ground that no cause of action had arisen at Ambala.  So, the District Forum, Ambala, had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

3.      Aggrieved of the order, Manik Sethi-complainant filed the present appeal before this Commission. 

4.      The question for consideration is as to whether District Forum, Ambala, has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint?

5.      Section 11 of the Act, provides jurisdiction to the District Fora, which reads as under:

“Jurisdiction of the District Forum.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Forum shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services and the compensation, if any, claimed ''does not exceed rupees twenty lakhs. 

(2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a)     the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b)     any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office, or personally work for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or

              (c)     the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises”. 

 

6.      Indisputably, the order of Band was placed by the complainant at Ambala; Band was delivered at Ambala and the payment was made at Ambala. Thus, cause of action has arisen at Ambala, that is, within the jurisdiction of District Forum, Ambala. The District Forum has failed to appreciate the provision of Section 11 (c) of the Act and as such the impugned order cannot sustain.

7.      For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded to the District Forum, Ambala, to decide it afresh on merits.

8.      The complainant is directed to appear before the District Forum, Ambala on August 19^th, 2016.

9.      Copy of this order be sent to the District Forum.

 

Announced 29.07.2016

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

UK