DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL COMMISSION
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. No. 355/2022
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
04.11.2022 16.11.2022 15.06.2023
Complainant/s:- | Souradeep Mistry, S/o. Late Sanjay Kumar Mistry, 65, Baghajatin Road, New Barrackpore, P.O. and P.S. New Barrackpore, Dist- North 24 Parganas, Pin-700131. = Vs= |
Opposite Party/s: | Amazon India, 26/1, Bridge Gateway, 8th Floor, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, P.O. Malleshwar (West), P.S. Subramanya Nagar, Bewu Karumah, Bangalore, Karnatak, Pin-560055. |
P R E S E N T :- Smt. Sukla Sengupta………………….President.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw..…………………. Member.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…. …………………. Member.
JUDGMENT
The complainant has filed this case on 06.12.2022. Since then on several occasions days of hearing he did not turn up and take steps to serve the notice upon the opposite party.
He was directed to show cause by this commission but till date he did not appeal before this commission or file the show cause.
Under such circumstances this commission is of view to dispose of this case on merit.
From the content of the petition of complaint it appears that the complainant filed this case under Section 34(1), 34(2)(d), 35, 36 and 39 of the C.P. Act, 2019.
He filed this case against Amazon India alleging inter-alia that he ordered Axor Breezse Evo Camo Gloves from the O.P’s website on 15.07.2022 and paid for the same. Thereafter he received a wrong product at the time of delivery and returned the same and he was assured that he would get a refund within 2-3 days. But after spending 20 days the O.P did not send the product or refund the amount.
Hence this case is filed by the complainant with a prayer to give direction to the opposite party to look into the matter with foremost importance and to pay to take necessary steps to render service to the complainant or to refund the amount of Rs. 1,997/- as paid by him towards the price of the product and also prayed for giving direction to the opposite party to provide Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for their deficiency in service along with litigation cost.
Contd. To Page No. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No. 355/2022
In view of the facts stated by the complainant and also considering the materials on record it appears that the complainant since filing the petition of complaint did not take any proper step to serve notice upon the opposite parties or to prove his case by supporting evidence.
In that score without having any cogent evidence it cannot be held by this commission that the complainant could be able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt against the opposite party.
Thus, in view of the discussion made above it is opined by the commission that the complainant is miserably failure to prove his case for getting relief.
So, he is not entitled to get any relief because he is failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Under such circumstances, this commission is of view that the complainant could not be able to prove his case and is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Hence,
it is ordered,
that the case be and the same is dismissed against the opposite party without any cost.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected by me
President
Member Member President
