Ld Advocates are present. Judgement is ready and pronounced in open Commission.
BY - SRI ASISH DEB, PRESIDENT
Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant is a Consumer as provided under Consumer Protection Act and is constrained to approach this Forum against the gross negligent acts of the Opposite parties wherein they have committed serious deficiency of services and unfair trade practices. The Complainant is a law abiding citizens of India and Complainant has permanent residence at the above-mentioned address within this jurisdiction. The Opposite Party no.1 is the well-known online retailer and a prominent cloud services provider and O.P. No.2 is a private limited company run their business through the O.P. No.1 Opposite Party No.3 is the authorized delivery hub of opposite party No.1, and Opposite Party No.4 is the authorized Notices were duly served upon all the opposite parties. The opposite parties nos 2 and 4 have not contested the case ;as such the proceeding has run exparte against them. The opposite parties nos 1 and 3 have contested the case by filing written versions through their Ld Advocates. The ops 1 and no-3 have filed separate written versions denying the allegations made in the complaint against them.
The sum and summerisation of the written version filed by the opposite party no- 1 can be stated as follows: that each and every statement, contentions and allegations contained in the present complaint unless specifically admitted hereinafter, are denied in their entirety as though specifically set forth and traversed herein. The Complainant has impleaded “Amazon.in, Represented by Office in charge” as Opposite Party No. 1 and “Amazon Transport Service” as Opposite Party No. 3 in the present complaint, whereas the entity operating – www.Amazon.in (“e-commerce marketplace”) is Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (“ASSPL”), having its registered address at Brigade Gateway. 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Mallesshwaram (W) Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, India. It is important to clarify that ASSPL owns and operates the online marketplace www.amazon.in. It is settled principle of law that no individual can be held liable on behalf of a company. It is submitted that Opposite Party No. 4 i.e. Nitai Jain is not related to ASSPL/Answering Respondent, neither in the capacity of agent of ASSPL/Answering Respondent nor as an employee of ASSPL/Answering Respondent.Hence, all the allegations and averments are denied to the same effect. It is further submitted that not only is the present dispute solely between Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. the seller (Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd.) and Opposite party No. 4(Nitai Jain), but also that the present complaint is not maintainable. It is submitted that the present complaint has been filed on 05.12.2020 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, it is relevant to mention herein that on 20.07.2020 the Consumer Protect ion Act, 1986 was repealed and replaced with the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the Complainant has filed present complaint under the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the present complaint deserves dismissal the very threshold. It is submitted that as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, ASSPL/Answering Respondent has been defined as an ‘electronic service provider’ which provides an e-commerce marketplace where independent third party sellers list and sell their products to buyers. Section 2(17) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines the term electronic service provider as follows :
“2. Definitions
(17) “electronic service provider” means a person who provides technologies or processes to enable a product seller to engage in advertising or selling goods or services to a consumer and includes any online market place or online auction sites”
From a reading of the above, it is evident that the term electronic service provider includes an e-commerce marketplace like ASSPL/Answering Respondent. Further the terms electronic service provider elaborates the role of an electronic service provider like ASSPL/Answering Respondent is for providing (a) technologies or (b) processes to enable a “Product Seller” to enlarge in advertising or selling goods or services to a consumer. It is submitted that from a bare reading of the term electronic service provider makes sit clear that an online/e-commerce marketplace like ASSPL/Answering Respondent is not a “Product Seller” in fact, the ASSPL/Answering Respondent being an e-commerce marketplace processes to enable a “Product Seller” to engage in advertising or selling goods or services to a consumer. Thus, no liability whatsoever accrues on ASSPL/Answering Respondent. ASSPL manages the e-commerce marketplace : i.e. www.amazon.in and move application namely, ‘Amazon Shopping’ where independent third party sellers list their products for sale. Any independent third party seller is free to list any product for sale. Any independent third party seller is free to list and product for sale and any buyer is free to choose and order any product from any independent third party seller selling that product on the e-commerce marketplace. There is no influence or interference of ASSPL in the same process of listing of products by independent third party sellers and sale transactions undertaken by the independent third party sellers. All the orders placed by the buyers are directly placed with the independent third party sellers listed on the e-commerce marketplace, and not with ASSPL/Answering Respondent, which is merely an e-commerce marketplace for the sales transaction entered by an between the buyer and the independent third party seller to the exclusion of ASSPL/Answering Respondent. All the online transactions by the user of the e-commerce marketplace of ASSPL/Answering Respondent are governed by certain conditions of use and sale which are applicable to all persons intending to purchase any product from independent third party sellers on the e-commerce marketplace operated by ASSPL/Answering Respondent. Respondent is not liable for performance of the sale agreement executed by and between the buyer and the independent third party seller on the e-commerce marketplace as the agreement of sale entered by and between the buyer and the independent third party seller stipulates that ASSPL/Answering Respondent has no role to play in the same. All liabilities towards product quality, safety, price, delivery/non-delivery are clearly fastened on the independent third party sellers by contact, legal provisions and implications without any liabilities on ASSPL/Answering Respondent which is merely operating an e-commerce marketplace. It is submitted that the present complaint filed by the Complaint is bad for mis-joinder of parties as ASSPL/Answering Respondent who merely operates the e-commerce market place, has incorrectly been impleaded as a party to the Complainant. Against the invoice, the Complainant thereafter made the payment directly to the independent Third Party Seller, i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd(Opposite Party No. 2) in the nodal account set up pursuant to the RBI directions dated 24.11.2009. A product ordered by and buyer with any independent third party seller on the e-commerce marketplace of ASSPL/Answering Respondent is packed, sealed, shipped and delivered to the buyer by the independent third party seller on the e-commerce marketplace of ASSPL/Answering Respondent is packed, sealed, shipped and delivered to the buyer by the independent third party seller along with no role assigned to ASSPL/Answering Respondent. Likewise, in the instant case, the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2) was solely responsible for delivering the Product to the Complainant. The Complainant has alleged that, he purchased a Laptop i.e. the Product herein, from the independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2), through the e-commerce marketplace of ASSPL/Answering Respondent. Pursuant to the delivery, the Complainant has alleged he found that a copper bottle in place of the Product so ordered with the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2), has been delivered by the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2) to him. Thereafter, he has further alleged that when he reached out to customer service of ASSPL/Answering Respondent and created a return request, ASSPL/Answering Respondent denied the refund and replacement request of the Complainant, on the basis that a correct Product in intact condition was delivered to him by the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. (Opposite party No. 2). Hence, this complaint demanding refund of the cost of the Product and the compensation. Respondent erringly and informed that the product ordered by him was missing from the package delivered by the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2) to him. ASSPL/Answering Respondent duly communicated the grievances raised by the complaint to the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2), on behalf of the complainant. The independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2) informed ASSPL/Answering Respondent that on the basis of investigation made by the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2), the correct product was packed, shipped and delivered to the Complainant in an intact condition, therefore the Independent Third Party Seller stated that it would not be able to grant the complainant any refund or replacement for the same. ASSPL/Answering Respondent informed the same to the Complainant on behalf of the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd (Opposite Party No. 2). It is submitted that a product ordered by any buyer with any independent third party seller on the e-commerce marketplace of ASSPL/Answering Respondent is packed, sealed, shipped and delivered to the buyer by the independent third party seller alone with no role assigned to ASSPL/Answering Respondent. The allegations in the present Complaint relate to theft, fraud and assault. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of “Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd and Anr., Revision Petition No. 4535 of 2013, decided on 04.03.2014”, wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that – when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the same can not be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature. It is respectfully submitted that the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and adjudicate the present complaint. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has raised issues, which involves questions of facts as well as law, and it necessarily requires deposition of evidence and trial and the same can not be done in proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, which are summary proceedings and the complicated questions of law and facts and beyond the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum It is, thus, submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground alone.
In the matter titled as ParamanandaTripathy vs. Bank of Baroda,[(3) 1992 CPJ 231] following has been held : Consumer must come with clean hands. Relief to be granted under the Consumer Protection Act is equitable based on rights of a consumer. Where consumer does not disclose the back-ground and makes an endeavour to suppress facts to get redressal under the Act, a redressal agency created under the Act should not extend its helping had even in a benevolent statute and should leave the consumer to have his remedies in the conventional forums”.
The Hon’ble State Commission of Orrisa in Amrik Singh vs. M/S United India Insurance Company Ltd., [1993(2) CPR 203] held that :
“Consumer must come with clean hands. Suppression of material fact by the complainant disentitles him to relief in this jurisdiction. A consumer knocking at the door of the redressal agencies under the Act for relief of a consumer dispute must do so with clean hands”.
As per the judicial interpretation of the doctrine as held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.C. chacko v State of Travancore, AIR 1970 SC 504 in a far reaching attempt of clearing the ambiguities in the application of the doctrine of privity held that a person not a party to contract can not enforce the terms of the contract.
Further approving the necessity of privity of contract as important ground under Consumer Protection Act, Hon’ble National Consumer Commission held in the case of RCI India Pvt. Ltd vsParthasarthy, Revision Petition No. 443 OF 2007 that “the doctrine of privity, while in principle, at least prevents a third party beneficiary from suing on a contract, operates with equal logic to forbid the contracting parties to enforce obligations against a stranger.” Further, ‘Conditions of Sale, agreement entered into between the Complainant and the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2), stipulates that the contract of sale was exclusively entered into between the complainant and the Independent Third Party Seller, i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd(Opposite Party No. 2) and no plausive cause of action accrued against ASSPL/Answering Respondent. Any liability with respect to the delivery of the Product, non-delivery of the Product, delivery of wrong Product and after sales service, and refund in relation to the Product can only be attributed to the Independent Third Party Seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. (Opposite Party No. 2), and not ASSPL/Answering Respondent. Therefore, the present complaint is prayed to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
Whereas op-3 has contended in its written version inter alia that the instant case is not at all maintainable in its present form, prayer and in law. The instant case is not properly and correctly valued in the eye of law. The Complainant has no cause of action against the O.Ps. The Complaint of the Complainant is based on baseless allegation which deserves to be dismissed. The instant complaint is barred under the provision of law and contract Act. The instant complaint is barred under the provision of Consumer Protection Act. 1986. The Complainant has got no cause of action against this O.P. to filed the instant case. The instant Complaint is liable to be rejected for its inconsistent prayer. The present application as well the original complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. The instant case is barred under provision of Estoppels. Waiver and Acquiescence.The complaint is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of parties. The Complainant has no locus standi to initiate the present proceedings against this O.Ps. The above mentioned case filed without proper jurisdiction so it is not maintainable by the present law. The Complainant includes this answering O.P. only for purpose of filing this case within this Jurisdiction. This O.Ps.have no liability and deficiency of service or others service regarding so called allegations raised by complainant. Answering O.P. is the director of Amazon Transport Service Pvt. Ltd. Company and complainant wrongly mentioned the name of O.P. and also AbhishekGiri neither a proprietor of Amazon Transport Service nor the director Amazon Transport Service Pvt. Ltd. The Complainant intentionally and falsely filed this case against this O.P. and his son Abhisek. The case shall be rejected due to false and illegal cause of action. The contents of the paragraph No.-1 of the Complaint/ Complainant of this case is false, concocted, motivated and baseless, all the contents are not admitted by this OP the Complainant is liable to prove it. The contents of the paragraph No-2 & e of the Complaint/of this case, not admitted by this OP, the complainant is liable to prove it. The complainant is liable to prove the contents of the paragraph No. 4,5,6& 7 of complaint of this case. The contents of the paragraph No.-8,9,10,11,12 of the complaint of this case need not reply and not admitted by this OP, the complainant is liable to prove it. The contents of the paragraph No.-13 false, concocted, motivated and baseless, all the contents are not admitted by this OP, statement as on 20/11/2020 Complainant went to the delivery hub of the O.P. No.3 and let the proprietor of the delivery hub know all about the incident and show them the unboxing video with the photography of the wrong delivery products as a evidence and opposite party No.3 and Opposite party No4 pushed the complainant out of the delivery hub and said complainant nothing can do and also said that they know everything from the very beginning that the wrong product has been deliver to Complainant are totally false, fabricating and misleading. The contents of the paragraph No. 14,15,16,17, & 18 of complaint of this case, is totally false, motivated, baseless and illegal. The contents of the paragraphs are not admitted by this O.P. All are to be strictly proved by the Complainant. The O.Ps submit that the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands. The Complainant suppressed material facts, stated wrong facts, twisted the facts and leveled baseless allegations in the complaint with an ill intention so as to claim as well as claim heavy compensation, which cannot be entertained in the interest of Justice. This O.P. member is reputed person, he is a director of Amazon Transport Service Pvt. Ltd. Company. This O.P’s company received the shipment sealed packet from the O.P. No.1 company and said shipment sorting as PIN code wise and for delivery out on road on intact and sealed condition. Complainant booking product/shipment and others shipments transported in sealed and intact condition to Tamluk Branch for delivery. At Tamluk Branch said shipments was sorted as root wise and O.P. No.-4
Arguments
In course of arguments the Ld Advocate for the complainant submitted that ops have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service ; they practiced fraud upon the complainant . The complainant has proved his allegations. The Ld Advocate submits that complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Per contra, the Ld Advocate for the contesting parities vehemently resisted the claim of the complainant. It is contended that the present complaint has been filed on 05.12.2020 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, it is relevant to mention herein that on 20.07.2020 the Consumer Protect ion Act, 1986 was repealed and replaced with the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the Complainant has filed present complaint under the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the present complaint deserves dismissal the very threshold. He has submitted that the complainant has not come before this commission with clean hands. He suppressed the material facts. The complainant for his wrongful gain with a malafide intention and ulterior motive filed this case against this OPs. He has reiterated the contents of the written arguments which is a replica of the written version. Therefore, he has submitted that the present complaint is to be dismissed in the interest of justice.
Points for determination are:
1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?
Decision with reasons
In Re points no 1 & 2
Both the points, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience. We have gone through the written argument and have given thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the LdAdvocates for the rival parties.
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant and evidence produced by Complainant and from the ends of ops. On appraisal of the materials on records along with bundle of facts it appears that the complainant is a Consumer in respect of the acts and transactions with the O.Ps. The contention of the adversary that the present complaint has been filed on 05.12.2020 under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. However, it is relevant to mention herein that on 20.07.2020 the Consumer Protect ion Act, 1986 was repealed and replaced with the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 the Complainant has filed present complaint under the old Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly, the present complaint deserves dismissal the very threshold does not hold goodbecause the complaint itself is not inconsistent with the provisions of the C. P. Act 2019 . The caption of the complaint is not important ; the important thing is the action taken or purported to have been taken. We have appreciated the bundle of facts in this case. The savings clause under section 107(2) of the C .P. act 2019 is the guiding provision in the this context. The case is maintainable in its present form and in law.
Now, on careful analysis and evaluation of the materials on record , it appears that the complainant in his examination-in-chief on affidavit has stated that After knowing a well known E-Commerce site the Complainant ordered a laptop through the mobile application i.e. Amazon, in of Opposite party No. 1 on dated 02/11/2020 vide order No. 408-8882500-6013900 and since there was no cash-on-delivery offer on that laptop the Complainant paid Rs. 54,990/- for the laptop through online from his savings bank account of state bank of India, Tamluk Branch. After paying the full amount to Opposite Party No.1 for the price of the ordered laptop, the Opposite party No.1 sent the tax invoice of the laptop to the Complainant’s email-id and from that invoice the complainant came to know the seller of the laptop is opposite party No.2 . On 06/11/2020 opposite party no.4 came to deliver the ordered item and as the complainant had already paid for the item, the Opposite Party No.4 left the complainant’s house in a hurry without saying a word after the delivery. After receiving the ordered packet the complainant suspected the box looks too light and then and there the complainant started making an unboxing video of the item and after opening the box the Complainant saw that a copper bottle with some thermocol padding was neatly packaged inside the box. The Complainant was completely devastated and called immediately to the O.P. No.4 but the Complainant was shocked that the O.P. No.4 picked up the Complainant’s call after called him so many times and the Complainant told him all the facts and told him to come to the Complainant’s address but O.P. No.4 denied to come and let the Complainant know that he has been delivered the right thing then immediately O.P. No.4 cut the phone call. When the Complainant called O.P. No.4 again he had the audacity to make such threat and started abusing to the Complainant with rough the filthy languages. On 06.11.2020 the Complainant immediately sent the return request of the wrong product to O.P. NO.1 through their e-commerce application and told them all the facts by e-mail and making a phone call to the help line number of O.P. No.1 on the same day the complainant received an e-mail from the O.P. No.1 acknowledging the item was missing from the shipment and they told the complainant that they will investigate the matter and resolve the issue within 2 days. After two days when no reply has been received from O.P. No.1 on 10.11.2020 the Complainant wrote the full incident and sent that to the O.P. No.1 via e-mail with the unboxing video and all the photographs of the wrong product. On the very same day the complainant was shocked to receive a reply from the O.P. No.1 that they have investigated the incident and came to know that package was delivered in intact condition and correct item was shipped and delivered.
Against the said versions the contesting ops put questionnaire to the complainant , the complainant also replied to said questionnaire. The ops have not been able to bring out any adverse to establish that the complainant has really come before this commission with unclean hands. The op has not placed any cogent evidence to justify their claim of innocence. They have not produced the results of their proceedings including CCTV footage of so called investigation undertaken by them. On the other hand the complainant had lodged the complaint with the ops immediately without any delay. It can not be presumed that the complainant had collected the copper bottle with the thermocol padding/ packing earlier of his own with the intention to insert or implant the same in the box to be delivered by op-4 and made the false video for sending the same to the ops. The preponderance of evidence is in favour of the complainant. The evidence produced by the complainant can not be disbelieved until and unless it is brushed aside by the ops with cogent and reliable evidence.
Now, it is the law that E- Commerce is powered by the internet customers access an online store to browse through and place orders for products or services via their own devices, As the order is placed, the customer’s web browser will communicate back and forthwith the server hosting the e-commerce website. Data pertaining to the order will be relayed to a central computer known as order manager. It will be then forwarded to databases that manages inventory level ;a merchant system that manages payment information .After the order is validated ,the order manager will notify the store web server. It will display a message notifying the customer that their order has been successfully processed . The order manager will then send order data to the warehouse or fulfillment department, letting it know the product or service can be dispatched to the customer. Platform that host e commerce transactions include online market places that sellers sign up for such as Amazon ; software as service tools that allow customers to rent online store infrastructure. Amazon is the most recognized virtual store on the internet. It dominates the B2C market. It is established selling website to drive online sales.
Indisputably, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.54,990/- purchase value of the laptop to op-2 seller entering through op-1, Amazon, the most recognized virtual store on the internet. It has signed up to function as marketplace for op-2. The consumer was not satisfied with the reason assigned for repudiation of the claim and grievances. Then the complainant consumer has initiated the instant proceeding with the allegation of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice before Commission. But the op-2 ,seller of the product has not turned up before this commission to describe the modus oprandi of their investigation. It has not produced the proceedings of inquiry or investigation for the scrutiny of this forum regarding fulfillment of shipping issues or what it did to encounter loss of goods during transit. The product seller has signed up with the marketplace op-1 for fulfillment of dispatch of the sold goods to the customer. It can not be held that the op-1 has got no business or financial or profit gaining interest with other ops interse. The market place signs up with the seller in lieu of gaining some profit. The ops 1,2,& 3 can not wash their hands saying plainly that Opposite Party No. 4 i.e. Nitai Jain is not related to ASSPL/Answering Respondent, neither in the capacity of agent of ASSPL/Answering Respondent nor as an employee of ASSPL/Answering Respondent. It is the person ie op-4 by whom the other ops fulfill the dispatch liabilities. The ops 1 to 3 are vicariously liable for wrong done if any by op-4 too.
Now ,according to see 37(1) of the Sales of Goods Act where the seller delivers to the buyer a quantity of goods less than the contracted to sell the buyer may reject the goods. A buyer is deemed to have accepted the delivery of goods where he(1) inform the seller that he has accepted the goods or (2) does something to the goods which is inconsistent with the ownership of seller or retains the goods beyond a reasonable time, without informing the seller that he has rejected them. Here in the instant case the complainant did not retain the goods beyond a reasonable time, without informing the seller. The complainant had informed the ops immediately about the delivery of a box containing copper bottle instead of Laptop .Actual delivery is if the goods are physically given into the possession of the buyer. The op no-4 who came to deliver the goods sold by op-2 through the market place op-1 enroute op-3 did not deliver the physical possession of the goods.
Legally speaking proof of delivery serves a few rules that encapsulate the above. It states that the delivery was made in good condition as well as specifies which goods were delivered. According to section 37 of the Sales of Goods Act , the seller is under an obligation to deliver that quantity of goods contacted ; for a defective delivery entitles the buyer to reject the goods. According to Section 41 of the said Act where goods are delivered to a buyer which he has not previously examined, he is not deemed to have accepted them, unless he has reasonable opportunity of examining them and ascertain whether they conform to the contract. Here the op-4 without giving reasonable opportunity of examining the goods and ascertain whether it conforms to the contract or not instead he almost run away and did not intend to receive the phone call or in turn he threatened the customer/consumer. The principle of law as enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M.C. chacko v State of Travancore, AIR 1970 SC 504 is not applicable in this case as the facts and circumstances of this case are different from the facts and circumstances of the said referred case.
In Civil Appeal No. 3883 of 2007 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed in a dispute concerning a consumer, it is necessary for the courts to take a pragmatic view of the rights of the consumer principally since it is the consumer who is placed at a disadvantage visa vice the supplier of service or goods.
In view of the settled position of law and in the light of our above observation we hold that the arguments advance by the Ld Advocate for the ops do not have any leg to stand upon. It is clearly established that the complainant is a Consumer and there is deficiency of service and instances of unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 to 3. Complainant is entitled to get the relief(s) as sought for from those ops 1 to 3. The op-4 can not be held personally liable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
Thus both the points are decided in favour of the complainant.
Resultantly , the complaint case succeeds.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That the CC/240 of 2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against ops-1 & 3 allowed exparte against the OP-2 and dismissed exparte against op-4.
The Opposite Parties 1 , 2 & 3 ,who are jointly and severally liable, are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.54,990/- purchase value of the laptop along with simple interest @ 5% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till full realization of the awarded amount in the form of compensation with further Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order .
The complainant will be at liberty to put this order into execution under section 71 of the C. P .ACT 2019 or to initiate proceeding under section 72(2) of the C. P .ACT 2019 in default of non compliance of the order by the Opposite Parties 1 , 2 & 3.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied to the complainant and Opposite Parties 1 & 3 free of cost.
