DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                    Complaint No. 306

 Instituted on:   18.06.2018

                                                                   Decided on:     08.02.2021

Sushant Garg C/O Bhawani Tyre Service, Near New Bus Stand, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Ground Floor, Eros Corporate Centre, Nehru Palace, New Delhi 110019 through its M.D.

             ….Opposite party. 

For the complainant:                   :Shri  G.S.Shergill, Adv.              

For the OP                                  :Shri  P.S.Sidhu, Adv.

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

ORDER:  

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

1.             Shri Sushant Garg,  complainant has filed this complaint pleading that the complainant  got booked one pair of shoes of Adidas Men’s Kray 1.0M Cblack with the OP on 26.2.2017 and the order was successfully placed vide order ID No. 407-3323265-6349930 with the OP and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.2150/- to the OP. The OP gave one year warranty on the said shoes if any defect arose due to manufacturing defect or poor workmanship.  Further case of the complainant is that the OP dispatched the said shoes to the complainant along with invoice and the same was received by the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that thereafter the complainant immediately returned the said shoes within the prescribed time of return and the same was received by the OP on 9.3.2017 and the OP assured that the payment will be refunded to the complainant within a  short span.  The grievance of the complainant is that the OP failed to refund the due amount of Rs.2150/- to the complainant despite his best efforts. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite party be directed to pay to the complainant the amount of Rs.2150/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of payment till its realization and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complainant has not bought any goods from the OP, that the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as no there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the OP and that there is no occasion for the complainant to approach this Forum.  On merits,  it has been denied that the complainant has paid any amount to the OP or that the OP never gave any warranty/guarantee for the product. It is further stated that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP and any deficiency on the part of the OP has been denied. Lastly, the OP has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs. 

3.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that that the complainant purchased one pair of shoes of Adidas Men’s Kray 1.0M Cblack from  the OP by paying the requisite amount of   Rs.2150/- to the OP. The learned counsel further argued that the  OP gave one year warranty on the said shoes if any defect arose due to manufacturing defect or poor workmanship.  Further the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that  after receipt of the shoes from the OP the complainant immediately returned back the said shoes within the prescribed time of return and the same was received by the OP on 9.3.2017 and the OP assured that the payment will be refunded to the complainant within a  short span, but the OP has failed to refund back the due amount of Rs.2150/- to the complainant despite his best efforts, as such, the complainant has prayed that the complaint be allowed.

5.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that there is no defect in the shoes and the complainant has deliberately returned the shoes back to the OP and as such has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

6.             To prove his case, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C-1 and has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the copy of mail  wherein it has been mentioned that the company has accepted the return of the shoes and the payment of Rs.2150/- shall be paid to the complainant shortly. Another mail dated 15.3.2017 clearly shows that the refund of the amount shall be initiated by the OP within 3 or 5 business days. Another mail dated 8.8.2017 further shows that the OP apologized for the delay in refunding the amount of Rs.2150/- to the complainant and further assured that the refund will be made shortly.  So, from the above documents produced on the file, it is clear that the shoes have been received by the OP but the amount of Rs.2150/- has not been refunded to the complainant.  The OP has produced on record copy of letter Ex.OPW1/1, Ex.OPW1/2, Ex.OPW1/3 and Ex.OPW1/4, but the OP has failed to refund the due amount of Rs.2150/- to the complainant.

7.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.2150/-. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.   This order be complied with by the opposite party within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        February 8, 2021.

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                 President