DATE OF DISPOSAL: 24.06.2024
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short the O.Ps.) and for redressal of her grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant on 23.01.2016 was booked through online for High-tech Gadget spy Bluetooth banyan earpiece set and parcel amounting to Rs.5499/- which was received on 03.02.2016. The ordered article High-tech Gadget spy Bluetooth banyan earpiece set was not in the parcel except few hard paper and polythene. After discussion with the Amazon Customer service, the parcel was returned as it was vide speed post No.EO8197368531N through RMS Bhubaneswar on 17.02.2016 to the appropriate place, i.e. Bahadurpura SO Telengana and the same was received by them on 19.02.2016. The Company had neither sent the material booked by the complainant not returning the amount, even after several correspondences and contacts. The complainant made several correspondences with the O.Ps such as Amazon Company and its customer services on different dates i.e. on 01.02.2016, 03.02.2016, 07.02.2016, 10.02.2016, 11.02.2016, 17.02.2016, 20.02.2016, 26.02.2016, 11.03.2016, 12.03.2016, 08.04.2016, 08.05.2016, 09.05.2016, 19.05.2016, 09.06.2016, 27.06.2016, 07.07.2016, 05.02.2017, 26.05.2017, 27.05.2017, 30.08.2017 and 02.09.2017 (different times of repeated same dates). Legal notice of an advocate bearing No. 987 dated 08.09.2018, final notice No. 1011 dated 18.12.2018 and the last and final notice bearing No. 24(2) dated 12.03.2019 of advocate have been served to both the O.Ps through registered post with AD. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of parcel of Rs.7575/-, compensation of Rs.72,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.18,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties.
4. The O.P.No.1 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the answering herein neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers can lists their products for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listing and products on the website. The answering O.P. is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the websites by various third party sellers nor does the answering respondent intervene or influence any customers in any manner. The answering O.P. intervenes or influences any customers in any manner. The O.P.No.1 is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. The conditions relating to the customers use of the website and specifically agreed by the customers state that the answering O.P. is only a facilitator and cannot be a party to or control in any manner any sale transaction on the website. The contract of sale of products on the website is strictly a bipartite contact between the customer and the seller. The contents of preliminary submissions and preliminary objections shall be treated as part and parcel in response to averments of the complaint and anything contrary thereto or inconsistent therewith are wrong and denied and the same is not repeated for the sake of brevity. In Para 1-2 of the complaint it is submitted that the said order was placed by the complainant upon 3rd party independent seller. The answering O.P. never charged any amount in respect of the said product from the complainant. The seller has updated the concerned support team of answering O.P. The said product was successfully delivered to the complainant. The grievance of the complainant is criminal in nature which requires thorough investigation for collection of evidence. The complaint of the complainant is time barred and as per the policy accepted and agreed by the complainant answering O.P. has no role in the said transaction. The complainant has not explained the delay satisfactorily and did not disclose any fact or ground which prevented him for seeking remedy before. The complainant has not bought the alleged product from answering OP nor has the complainant paid any amount/consideration to answering OP and the same can be seen from the bill attached by the complainant itself that the said product was sold by seller and answering O.P. has no role in it. The complainant is not entitled to claim/any relief from answering O.P. as the complainant has failed to demonstrate any defect/deficiency in service/unfair trade practice qua the answering O.P. in the complaint and there is no cause of action even arose against the answering O.P. One who raises an allegation has to prove it beyond doubt. Not an iota of evidence has been placed on the file by the complainant to substantiate his claim qua the answering O.P. The complainant has merely raised bald allegations not substantiated by any cogent documentary evidence which could not suffice to make out a case against the O.P. The complainant is not entitled to any relief, whatsoever, and is not entitled to claim and recover anything from the answering O.P. in the light of what is stated above, which are not repeated herein for the sake of brevity. Hence the O.P.No.1 prayed to dismiss the case.
5. On the date of hearing the complainant in person and the advocate for the O.P.No.1 is present. The Commission heard on the point of issues at length. The Commission perused the complaint, written version, evidence on affidavit, written argument and documents available in the case record minutely.
It is apparent that the complainant has not filed invoice of the product and order No. 402-9157632-3481123 issued by the Opposite parties. In absence of genuine tax invoice of the product and prove of payment and any cogent materials regarding purchase of the product has filed by the complainant, the complainant cannot be treated as consumer of the Opposite Parties. Mentioning of the order number of the product in the complaint is not sufficient to prove the case that the complainant has purchased the product from the opposite parties. And in absence of material documents no effective order can be passed. The complainant also not filed any tax invoice even during the course of trial and failed to prove the grievance of the transactions and failed to discharge the burden of proof as per law of the land.
In view of the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal 230 of 2023 in between the State of Karnataka versus M/s Ecom Gill Coffee Trading Private limited, the Commission disallowed the present complaint. Hence it is dismissed.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 24.06.2024.
