Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/6/2023

KARANVIR GANDOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

02 Mar 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(Additional Bench)

 

 

Appeal No.	:	06 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	18.01.2023
Date of Decision	:	02.03.2023

 

Karanvir Gandotra s/o Sh.Mohinder Pratap Gandotra, aged about 61 years, Resident of # 3455, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh 160036 Email:alex.karen.work@gmail.com

 

……Appellant/Complainant

 

V e r s u s

 

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, through its Director/Vice-President/Authorized Signatory, Registered Office:- 8^th Floor, Brigade Gateway 26/1 Dr.Rajkumar Road Bangalore 560055, Karnataka, India. 

Email ecr@amazon.in

          sm-writebacks@amazon.in

…..Respondent/opposite party

 

BEFORE:              JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

                             MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                             MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

                            

Present:-

                             Sh.Karanvir Gandotra, appellant in person.

                             Sh.Atul Goyal, Advocate for the respondent

 

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                  

                   The complainant has come up with this appeal for enhancement of the reliefs awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), vide order dated 09.11.2022, whereby the consumer complaint bearing no.636 of 2022 filed by him was partly allowed and the opposite parties/respondents were directed as under:-

 

1. “…To refund an amount of Rs.1,67,607/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till realization;
2. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

        This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall be liable to additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from above relief..…”

 

2.           Succinctly stated that the complainant ordered four cricket bats for his son on 25^th & 26^th May, 2021, using his wife’s credit card, with OPs on his Amazon Account with registered Mobile No.6284803621 and paid a total sum of Rs.1,67,607/- for the same to the opposite parties.  It is stated that despite receipt of said complete amount, the OPs neither issued any invoice or bill of said products nor delivered the same. Even his amazon account was put on hold without assigning any reason by the OPs. 
3.           In the reply, the opposite parties no.1 and 2/Amazon have admitted receipt of Rs.1,67,607/- as price of four cricket bats and also admitted that the goods were never supplied to the complainant/appellant. However, justification for this given by the opposite parties is that on 31.08.2022, when they received information from the complainant regarding non delivery of product, by that time, return/replacement/refund window already stood expired on 8^th and 10^th June 2021.
4.           The contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and numerous documents before the District Commission.
5.           The District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record, partly allowed the consumer complaint, as stated above. However, this appeal has been filed by the appellant for enhancement of the relief awarded by the District Commission.        
6.           We have heard the contesting parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record, including the written arguments.
7.           During arguments, the appellant vehemently contended that the award  given by the District Commission needs enhancement on  following grounds:-
   1. Firstly, the interest awarded by the District Commission on the amount refunded should have been awarded from the date of making payment by the appellant to the respondents and not from the date of filing the consumer complaint;
   2. secondly, interest awarded on the amount to be refunded and also the compensation for agony and harassment is on the lower side because the appellant has suffered great financial loss as he also paid the amount of GST alongwith interest levied by the bank on using the credit card etc. at the time of making payment to the respondents for purchasing the said cricket bats  which they failed to supply to him.

 

8.           First coming to the contention raised by the appellant to the effect that the interest awarded by the District Commission on the amount refunded should have been awarded from the date of making payment by the appellant to the respondents and not from the date of filing the complaint; it may be stated here that this contention of the appellant is genuine and finds support from the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Alok Shanker Pandey Vs. Union of India & Ors., II (2007) CPJ 3 (SC), wherein it was held that in case of refund, interest needs to be awarded from the date of making payment till the date of refund. Relevant part of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

“….We are of the opinion that there is no hard and fast rule about how much interest should be granted and it all depends on the facts and circumstances of the each case. We are of the opinion that the grant of interest of 12% per annum is appropriate in the facts of this particular case. However, we are also of the opinion that since interest was not granted to the appellant along with the principal amount the respondent should then in addition to the interest at the rate of 12% per annum also pay to appellant interest at the same rate on the aforesaid interest from the date of payment of installments by the appellant to the respondent till the date of refund on this amount, and the entire amount mentioned above must be paid to the appellant within two months from the date of this judgment.

It may be mentioned that there is misconception about interest. Interest is not a penalty or punishment at all, but it is the normal accretion on capital. For example if A had to pay B a certain amount, say 10 years ago, but he offers that amount to him today, then he has pocketed the interest on the principal amount. Had A paid that amount to B 10 years ago, B would have invested that amount somewhere and earned interest thereon, but instead of that A has kept that amount with himself and earned interest on it for this period. Hence equity demands that A should not only pay back the principal amount but also the interest thereon to B…..”

Surprisingly, the District Commission failed to assign any reason for awarding interest on the  amount to be refunded, from the date of filing of the consumer complaint and not from the date of respective dates of deposit. In our considered opinion, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant is entitled to get interest on the amount deposited from the respective date(s) of deposits onwards and not from the date of filing of consumer complaint as awarded by the District Commission. Thus, impugned stands modified accordingly.

9.           The next question that falls for consideration is, as to whether, the appellant is entitled for enhancement of interest or not? We have considered this contention. In view of the rate of interest as on March 2021 of the nationalized banks, we are of the view that interest awarded by the District Commission is appropriate to the circumstances of the case and there is no need of any enhancement of rate of interest.
10.           The next limb of arguments of the appellant regarding payment of GST on credit card payment and also interest thereon is of no avail to the appellant.  If the wife of the appellant purchased the said bats through her credit card on higher rate of interest that is not binding on the respondents/opposite parties. Thus, the appellant is not entitled to enhancement of rate of interest and GST.
11.           At the same time, it is also held that compensation awarded to the appellant in the sum of Rs.10,000/- over and above the interest on the amount to be refunded besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-, in no way can be said to be on lower side. As such, no ground is made out to enhance the compensation for mental agony and harassment, already awarded by the District Commission. 
12.           Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the complainant had made a concealment of material fact by not stating that he has received the entire decreetal amount with full satisfaction vide undertaking dated 12.12.2022, Annexure D. We have gone through this document and it reads as under:-

“……In terms of the Hon'ble District Commission's Order/judgement dated 09.11.2022 in a Consumer Complaint- Karanvir Gondotra vs. Amazon India Private Limited in (CC/636/2022) we, Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited and Amazon India Development Centre respectively (collectively referred as "ASSPL") make a payment of Rs.1,92,587/- in full compliance of the said orders/judgement of the Hon'ble District Commission.

The above named Complainant agrees and acknowledges that the amount paid to him by ASSPL is the full and final payment made to him in compliance with the judgement of the Hon'ble District Commission in CC/636/2022 and the Complainant shall have no further claim to any amounts or other claims whatsoever arising out of the said complaint/Order…..”

13.           It may be stated here that though perusal of the contents extracted above, makes its abundantly clear that the entire decreetal amount has been received by the complainant/appellant without any protest and has given an undertaking not to claim any further amount, yet, the appellant has statutory right to avail the remedy of appeal. As such, the mere fact that  the appellant has already received the decreetal amount without any protest ipso  facto will not make him disentitled to avail the remedy of appeal.
14.           For the reasons recorded above, this appeal stands partly allowed. The order impugned is modified and the respondents/opposite parties jointly and severally are directed as under:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.1,67,607/- to the appellant/complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposits  onwards till realization.
2. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant/complainant as compensation for causing him mental agony and harassment, as also Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation, as already awarded by the District Commission, within a period of  45 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order failing which, they shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- apart from above relief.

15.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.           The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

02.03.2023

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (PREETINDER SINGH)

          MEMBER

 

 

Rg