Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/240/2022

M/S Ranisatiya Creation - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

Mukesh Kharkia

19 Jun 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 240 of 2022

                  Date of Institution             : 02.12.2022

                                                           Date of Decision               : 19.06.2024

 

M/s Ranisatiya Creation, Jai Ranisati Niwas, Bhooton Ka Darwaja, Neem Chowk, Naya Bazar, Bhiwani, Tehsil and District Bhiwani, Haryana through its proprietor Govind Goyal.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

1. Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055 through its Managing Director.

 

2. H G and Co., 18, 2^nd Floor, Kucha Choudhary, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi-110006 through its Manager/authorized person.

 

….. Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh.Mukesh Kharkiya Adv. for complainant.

                    Sh. Aditya Partap Singh, Adv. for OP No.1.

Op No.2 exparte vide order dated 17.03.2023.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that  complainant firm being run by Govind Goyal purchased a Digital Camera-Canon EOS R10 24.2 MP Mirrorless Digital Camera with RF-S18-45MM Kit Lens, from OP No.2 through OP No.1 on 13.11.2022 by paying a sum of Rs.90,995/-.  It is stated that on 17.11.2022 at about 1:54 p.m., complainant received a packet but it was damaged from corner, so the packet was opened before delivery boy and also made a video of the same. But on opening, it was having some salt packets and a bread packet and the purchased product was missing.  Complaint was raised before Op No.1 on 17.11.2020 through e-mail but it totally refuted the claim of complainant. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service causing him monetary loss besides mental and physical harassment.  In the end, prayer has been made to direct the Ops either to deliver the actual product as per order dated 13.11.2020 or to refund the amount of Rs.90,995/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till actual realization, further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment besides Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief to which this Commission deems fit has also been sought.

2.                 Upon notice, Op No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written statement mainly submitting that payment of the product was made by complainant to Sellerin the nodal account set up in accordance with the RBI Guidelines dated 24.11.2019. Further, the answering OP does not charge the buyers on the e-commerce marketplace rather it is paid directly to the independent third party seller from whom the purchase is made through the nodal account. It is submitted that on receiving a complaint, answering Op inquired and found learnt that the product was delivered to the complainant in an intact condition on 17.11.2022. It is stated that the cases of deliveries are secured by One Time Password feature, answering OP shares an OTP with the customer at the time of making the delivery of the product. In this case, OPT sent to complainant was shared by him with the delivery associate pursuant to the receipt of the correct and intact product.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 OP No.2 did not bother to appear despite notice, as such, it was proceeded against as exparte vide order dated 17.03.2023.

4.                 In evidence of complainant, tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3 and closed the evidence.

5.                 Ld. counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Sh. Rahul Narayanan alongwith documents OPW/1 and closed the evidence.

6.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and perused the record.

7.                 It is not disputed by Ops that complainant purchased the said Digital Camera on 13.11.2022 in Rs.90,995/- from OP No.2 through OP No.1- online marketing company.  This fact is also corroborates with invoice/cash memo Ex. P-1. As per Ex. P-2 (serial no.25), the product was delivered to complainant on 17.11.2022 at 1:54 p.m.  and in response to complaint of complainant, OP replied on 17.11.2022 at 14:16, later on, on 22.12.2022, rejected the claim of complainant on the premise that the items has duly delivered to the complainant.

8.                 Complainant in his pleadings and affidavit in evidence has agitated that the digital camera on receiving the delivery was missing  and videography to this effect was made and CD thereof (Ex. C-3) has been placed on record.  This all reveals that since the complainant has not received the product, he has to made all the exercises viz. making of videography at the time of open the delivery and further to make e-mail to the OP No.1 just after receiving of the delivery.  It is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.1 to rebut the contents of CD (Ex. P-3) has not placed on record any evidence which could prove that the product was delivered to complainant. Further, during the course of proceedings, OP No.1 has not insisted upon non-authenticity of the CD.  In view of the above, we are of considered opinion that the complainant has not received the ordered product at the time of its delivery which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 as it had received the order and it was his responsibility to ensure intact delivery of the product.  By such act & conduct of OP No.1, complainant has caused monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP No.1 is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To refund Rs.90,995/- (Rs. Ninety thousand nine hundred ninety five) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.

 

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.10000/- (Ten thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- (Rs. Eleven thousand) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OP No.1 shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party no.1 may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.                                     

Announced.

Dated:19.06.2024