DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 1563/2015
D.No.____________________ Dated: _________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SACHIN BHARTI S/o SH. UMESH THAKUR,
R/o H. No. B-308, KARAN VIHAR, PART-5,
KIRARI SULEMAN NAGAR, SULTANPURI,
DELHI-110086. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. AMAZON INDIA,
AMAZON DEVE. CENTRE INDIA PVT. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, BLOCK-A & B,
SURVEY NUMBER-109, 110, 111/2,
NANAKRAMGUDA VILLAGE,
SERLINGAMPLAYY MANDAL,HYDERABAD.
2. DTDC COURIER,
B-101, NARAINA INDL. AREA,
PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110028. … OPPOSITE PARTY (IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 30.11.2015
Date of decision: 26.06.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under
Section 12 & 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant booked a mobile handset Sony Xperia C-5 Ultra Dual (White) through online at home on 16.10.2015 vide order no.171-6873055- 5143535 and the complainant paid
CC No.1563/2015 Page 1 of 6
Rs.26,350/- online for the same. On 25.10.2015, one courier boy came at the premises of the complainant from OP-1 and delivered a mobile handset and the complainant was shocked and surprised when the complainant found the seal of the packet of the mobile handset was tempered and there was so many problems in the mobile handset. Thereafter, the complainant sent an e-mail to OP-1 on 28.10.2015 for return the mobile handset and refund the money, after the complainant received an e-mail from OP-1 for closing the return request and one most popular clause for online shopping “if you are not satisfied with material then you return the material within thirty days without any question”. The complainant again sent an e-mail to OP-1 on 28.10.2015 with comments “original seal is tempered, battery back-up, heating problem and the complainant again received an e-mail from OP-1 for providing invoice and proof from manufacturer/ service centre. Thereafter, the complainant approached Sony Centre, Sector-8, Rohini, Delhi but the official of service centre said that “this seller is not authorized to sell Sony phones, so it is an unauthorized purchase” and the complainant sent an e-mail of scan copy of tempered packet and token slip on 28.10.2015. The complainant further alleged that the complainant make so many conversation with OP-1 through e-mail but the complainant did not receive any proper resolution from OP-1 and the complainant visited another Sony service centre at Janakpuri, Delhi and the complainant shocked when received a remark from
CC No.1563/2015 Page 2 of 6
service centre “as per WCMS unit sold (my-malasia) out of India, not covered in warrantee RWR” against job sheet no. SP2/FY15-10/0001196 dated 29.10.2015 and the complainant sent scan copy of service centre job sheet on 29.10.2015. The complainant received an e-mail from OP-1 on 29.10.2015 for returned the packet with your own cost. On 31.10.2015, the complainant booked a courier with mobile handset to OP-1 through OP-2 vide consignment no. V24570480 and paid Rs.425/- for it and the complainant sent an e-mail with scan copy of consignment slip to OP-1 on 31.10.2015 and the consignment received by OP-1 on 03.11.2015. On 05.11.2015, the complainant sent an e-mail for his refund status and the complainant shocked when OP-1 replied that your consignment outbox was packed and inner side opened and the mobile handset was missing. Thereafter, the complainant again sent an e-mail for a query regarding delay intimation of open box against his refund status e-mail and in between the complainant also lodged a complaint with OP-2 through e-mail on 06.11.2015 but no avail and the complainant sent so many e-mails to OP-1 but the officials of OP-1 only appoint supervisor for the case of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that the complainant sent scan copy of the photographs of opened box to OP-2 also on 14.11.2015. The complainant accordingly alleged that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint
CC No.1563/2015 Page 3 of 6
praying for direction to OPs to pay Rs.26,775/- (i.e. Rs.26,350/- for mobile handset and Rs.425/- for courier charge) alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase aswell as compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing him mental agony and harassment and has also sought Rs.1,100/- as cost of litigation.
3. OPs have been contesting the case and have filed their separate reply/written statement. In written statement OP-1 submitted that the complainant filed a claim on 28.10.2015 which was granted by OP-1 and OP-1 generated refund of Rs.26,350/- and a confirmation mail of the same was sent to the complainant.
4. In its reply OP-2 submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. OP-2 further submitted that the consignment were not disclosed at the time of booking of the consignment in the consignment note and the consignment was insured and was duly delivered in intact condition to the consignee and no protest was lodged by the consignee about the tempering of the consignment and after investigation it was informed to the complainant that the consignment was delivered untampered and in sealed condition and as such the complaint deserves dismissal on the ground alone.
5. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the contentions of OP-1 & OP-2. However, the complainant did not dispute the contention of OP-1 that refund of Rs.26,350/- has been generated by OP-1 on 10.12.2015 and the same has been received by the complainant.
CC No.1563/2015 Page 4 of 6
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of details of order dated 16.10.2015, copy of return requested for order dated 28.10.2015 through e-mail, copies of e-mail communication between the parties, copy of retail invoice no. SP2/FY15-10/0001196 dated 29.10.2015 issued by Sony Authorized Service Centre, copy of courier receipt issued by OP-2 and copies of some photographs.
7. On the other hand, Sh. Rahul Sundaram, Senior Corporate Counsel (Litigation) for OP-1 and Ms. Nidhi Mehta, Legal Executive for OP-2 filed their separate affidavits in evidence. Only OP-1 filed written arguments.
8. This Forum has considered the case of the complainant and OPs in the light of evidence of the parties and documents placed on record. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted and there is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is revealed that OP-1 has earlier avoided to return the amount of the mobile handset to the complainant and has been taking various pleas in its e-mail communication with the complainant. However, when the complainant was successful in proving the fact that the disputed mobile handset was delivered to OP-1 through OP-2 and which has falsified the stand of OP-1. Moreover, it is also proved
CC No.1563/2015 Page 5 of 6
that the OP-1 has refunded the amount to the complainant only after filing of the present case. Accordingly, OP-1 is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant whichincludes litigation cost.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order failing which OP-1 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving of this order till the date of payment. If OP-1 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 26th day of June, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.1563/2015 Page 6 of 6
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
