District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly

PETITIONER

VS.

OPPOSITE PARTY

Complaint Case No.CC/60/2022

(Date of Filing:-07.04.2022)

1. Sri. Prasanta Das

134/4, C. S. Mukherjee Street, Flat No.F/5, Bipasha Police Housing, Konnagar,P.S. Uttarpara, District:- Hooghly, Pin-712235

    Versus  -

1. Amazon India (Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.),

Represented by its Manager/Director/ Concerned Authority,

Brigade Gateway, 8^th floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), P.S. Subramanya Nagar, Bengaluru-560055,

2. M/S Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. Represented by its Managing Director/ Manager

SY No. 524/1,2,3,4,6,525/1,2,3,4,5,6,526/3,4,5,6,527, of Medivala Village, and SY No. 51/1 of Thatanahalli, Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, P.S. Anekal, Karnataka-562107

3. Sukanta Biswas, H.G.Y.F. Amazon Delivery Station, 2/4 East G.T. Road,

P.O. Konnagar, P.S. Uttarpara, District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712235

 Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President

Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

PRESENT:                            

                                                    Dtd. 09.10.2023

Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

Having been agitated over delivery of an item allegedly different from the item actually ordered with an E-Commerce organization and post delivery treatment extended by the opposite parties in the matter of appropriate replacement, the instant case has been filed by the complainant on 07.04.2022, u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 involving three opposite parties as mentioned pre-page.

After trimming the unnecessary details, the series of events as depicted chronologically by the Complainant in his petition is as under.

1. The complainant on 22.08.21 placed an order online with OP 1 i.e. the e-commerce organization Amazon.in for one ‘GoPro HER09 Water Proof Action Camera’ worth Rs.42,990/- and the total consideration amount is claimed to have been paid online.
2. On 09.09.21 the item was delivered by OP-3 to the complainant’s residence.
3. However reportedly due to ‘Covid situation’ the Complainant started the process of opening the package the next day i.e. 10.09.2021. Allegedly while unboxing, it appeared that the package was tampered and its weight was light compared to the expected weight of the item ordered. Being suspicious about the actual item delivered, a video recording of the unboxing was made by a mobile phone. When totally unboxed, the Complainant reportedly found with astonishment that there was no camera inside the package and the package contained only a ‘single threefold grip handle box’.
4. The Complainant without wasting time, made contact with the OP 1 and lodged a complaint accordingly. In response, the OP 1 informed the Complainant through e-mail that they were investigating into the matter and asked him to wait for five days for further feedback.
5. However no further feedback was received from the OP 1’s end and on 14.09.21 a further request was made for necessary replacement.
6. As, this time also, the OP 1 was unresponsive, the Complainant lodged a general diary with the concerned local police station on 18.09.2021.
7. Subsequently repeated persuasions with the opposite parties through e-mails and letters, lodging of complaint with National Consumer Helpline, appeal made to Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice-RO Hooghly, all proved to be futile exercises.
8. The Complainant however received a letter dtd. 20.01.22 from the Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practice-RO Hooghly along with a copy of the reply from the OP 1 denying all the allegations.

Finally, gross mental agony, anxiety and harassment caused by the deficiency of service of the OPs compelled the Complainant to file the instant complaint petition.

Resultantly, in the complainant petition, the complainants prays for an order directing the opposite parties either to deliver the actual item ordered or to refund back the amount of Rs.42,990/ i.e. the consideration price already paid along with 18% interest from the date of placing of the order.

 Simultaneously, the complainant claims Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and further Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost from the OPs.

                 The Complainant along with his complaint petition has annexed the copies of the order placed with OP 1, the tax invoice, loan details, mails received from OP 1, receipted GD lodged with the concerned police station, complaint lodged with the Consumer Affairs Department of Government of West Bengal, complaint letters sent to all the OPs, terms and conditions of the E-Commerce organization and a VCD in which the unboxing of the package was reportedly made.

                 Now, so far as the history of the case is concerned, the complainant has submitted evidence on affidavit, brief notes on argument and certain related documents whereas opposite parties 1 and 2 in spite of proper service of notice preferred non-appearance before this Commission. Thus the case ran ex parte against opposite parties1 and 2. However OP 3 contested the case by filing written version, evidence on affidavit and Brief notes of argument.

                 Apart from filing a written statement, OP 1 did not make their appearance before this Commission at any stage of the proceedings of the case.

                OP 3 raises questions also, referring to certain irregularities in the matter of authenticity of the video recording of the unboxing process.  

                                                       Issues for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
2. Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.                                                                                                  
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.

                                          Decision with reason

Issue No. 1

In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.

Issue No. 2

Both the complainant and the opposite party no.1 & 3 are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.

The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-

Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Issue No. 3 and 4

For the sake of convenience, these mutually inter-related issues are taken together.

         Materials on records viz. the complaint petition filed by the Complainant, evidence on affidavit and brief notes on argument filed by the complainant and OP 3 and other connected records are perused.

        Now the focal point of the instant case lies during the time span between the dates 09.09.21 and 10.09.21 i.e. the date of receiving the package and the date of unboxing the package. The Complainant to establish his point has submitted a video CD and incidentally, apart from the documents filed by the Complainant this video CD is a key instrument to assess the actual scenario.

        There is no question about placing of the order with the OP 1 and receipt of the package from OP 3. The only question centers around the issue whether the package contained the actual item ordered by the Complainant.

         OP 1 in their response to the Assistant Director, Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell Consumer Affairs Department of Government of West Bengal has informed that OP 1 conducted an internal investigation and arrived at a finding that the actual consignment was delivered to the Complainant in an ‘intact condition’.

        The case runs ex parte against the OP 2 as in spite of service of proper service of notice OP 2 did not appear even on a single occasion.

      OP 3 in his representations made through written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument firstly puts stress on the issue that he being a mere employee of a courier company cannot be a necessary party in this case. He further points out that the article in question which was sent to his employer i.e. the courier company was appropriately sealed and labeled and at the time of delivering the article the Complainant on examination of the outer package of the article, provided the OTP sent to him by the OP1 and on receipt of the OTP, OP 3 handed over the consignment to the Complainant. OP 3 claims that had there been any sort of tampering of the outer cover, the Complainant would have refused to accept the consignment.

            Now so far as the receiving of the package and unboxing of the package as depicted by the Complainant in writing and by the video CD are concerned, there are some shady areas.

1. The package was received on 09.09.2021 but the same was opened on 10.09.2021 on the ground of the prevailing Covid situation. Here it is not clear that even if the issue related to infection arises, how the chance of infection could be ruled out by delaying the opening of the package by one day.
2. The Complainant must have had the basic idea of the approximate weight of the consignment. Naturally instant suspicion should have arisen in the Complainant’s mind as to the actual content of the package, as soon as he received the package. But at that juncture the package was received without raising any question.
3. At the time of receiving the package, the Complainant was to share an OTP received from OP 1 with the delivery man that is OP 3. But without expressing any doubt, without raising any question, the OTP was shared with the OP 3 unhesitatingly. Sharing of the OTP indicates that the Complainant was prima facie satisfied with the outer character of the package i.e. labeling, packaging, sealing apparent weight etc.
4. Finally the content of the video CD comes up. The video CD primarily appears to be a distorted one. The video CD does not even show the label affixed to the package in which the name and address of the consignee is printed. Normally a package sent by such e-commerce organizations is sealed very strongly with adhesive tape. These tapes conceal the content of the package very strongly. Usually these packages cannot be opened by sheer human effort and one needs a scissors or some sharp object to open the package particularly in case of valuable items. But in the video CD it shows that the package is being opened very easily and without exerting much effort.
5. Firstly the very authenticity of the video CD is questionable and secondly the content of the video CD makes the entire video recording devoid of credibility.

Now in view of the discussion made hereinabove and considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Commission is of the view that the instant petition suffers from absence of hard evidence and the veracity of the statements incorporated in the complaint petition appears questionable. Thus the instant Complaint petition does not deserve consideration.

Hence, it is     

                                                                    ORDERED

 that the complaint case bearing no.60/2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

           Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.