Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

CC/143/2018

SUMIT KOUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAZON - Opp.Party(s)

MOHIT

06 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT    CONSUMER     DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM, JAMMU

                (Constituted under J&K Consumer Protection Act,1987)

                                                         

 Case File  No.                 454/DFJ         

 Date of  Institution   :    19-02-2018

 Date of Decision      :      28-08-2018

 

Sumit Koul,

S/O Sh.Piyare Lal Koul,

R/O House No.04

 Lane No.2/7 (Dr.Choudhary Lane),

Roop Nagar Enclave-B,Jammu.

                                                                                                                                                Complainant

                V/S

1.Amazon

 Amazon Development Center,

India Pvt.Ltd.2^nd Floor Safina Towers

Opposite to J.P.Techno Park No.3,

Ali Asker Road,Banglore-560052.

2.Samsung India Electronics Pvt.Ltd.           Deleted vide order dated 24-04-2018.

A25 Ground Floor,Front Tower,

Mohan Co-operative Industrial Estate,

New Delhi-110044.

                                                                                                                                                Opposite parties

CORAM

                  Khalil Choudhary              (Distt.& Sessions Judge)   President

                  Mrs.Vijay Angral                                                               Member

                  Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan                                          Member

 

In the matter of: Complaint under section 10 of J&K Consumer

                              Protection Act 1987.

 

Mr.Mohit Nijhon,Advocate for complainant, present.

Mr.Amit Chadha ,Advocate for OP1,present.

 

                                   

                                                         ORDER

                      Grievance of complainant lies in a short compass, in that, complainant said to have placed an order for purchase of a mobile phone brand Samsung model Galaxy c7 Pro Gold 64 GB,for sum of Rs.24,900/-on Amazon online Shopping site,on,21-09-2017.Allegation of complainant is that upon opening the product, he became suspicious  about its genuineness because firstly the seal was broken and secondly the technical indicators raised certain questions. The product shows month and year of manufacture as September,2017 on its package cover while the set date in the mobile operating system showed Ist January,2016.Moreover the battery percentage was just 1% which is an unusual case for new handsets,therefore,it is clearly pointed out that the handset delivered to him was an old tampered one. Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OP for redressal of his grievance, but OPs paid no heed to his requests and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service and un fair trade practice. Hence the present complaint. In the final analysis, complainant prays refund of cost of handset to the tune of Rs.24,900/-alongwith interest and in addition also prays for compensation of Rs.65,000/-including litigation charges.

                        Notice alongwith copy of complaint was sent to OP1 through registered cover,however,despite lapse of statutory period, OPs1 has not taken any action to represent its case in this Forum, either to admit the claim of complainant or to deny the same within stipulated period, provided under the Act. Perusal of file reveals that OP1 has been served on 28-02-2018 and OP1 filed written version on,24-04-2018 which is beyond the statutory period of 45 days ,therefore, written version filed by OP1 cannot be considered.

                   Complainant adduced evidence by way of duly sworn his own affidavit. Complainant has placed on record copy of invoice and copies of mails.

            We have perused case file and heard L/C for complainant at length.

                Briefly stated grievance of complainant is that he placed an order for purchase of a mobile phone brand Samsung model Galaxy c7 Pro Gold 64 GB,for sum of Rs.24,900/-on Amazon online Shopping site,on,21-09-2017,but upon opening the product, he became suspicious  about its genuineness because firstly the seal was broken and secondly the technical indicators raised certain questions. The product shows month and year of manufacture as September,2017 on its package cover while the set date in the mobile operating system showed Ist January,2016.Moreover the battery percentage was just 1% which is an unusual case for new handsets,therefore,it is clearly pointed out that the handset delivered to him was an old tampered one. Allegation of complainant is that he repeatedly approached OP for redressal of his grievance, but OPs paid no heed to his requests and this act of Ops constitutes deficiency in service and un fair trade practice.

                         The complainant in his affidavit has supported the averments of the complaint. So from perusal of complaint, documentary and other evidence produced by the complainant, it appears that the complainant has succeeded in proving his case as narrated by him in the complaint. The complaint is fully supported by his own affidavit, so, in the given circumstances of the case, and in view of the evidence on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the averments contained in complaint. This is a case of deficiency in service. The OP1 despite service of notice, sent by the Forum through registered cover has not taken any action to file written version within statutory period of 45 days, so the written version filed by OP1 cannot be considered. The present case of the complainant is covered by Section 11 2(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1987, which provides that in a case, where the OP omits or fails to take any action to represent their case within the time given by Forum, in that situation, the Forum shall settle the consumer dispute on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant. Sub-clause (ii) of the Section 11, clearly provides that even where the OP1 omits or fails to taken any action to represent the case before the Forum, the dispute has still to be decided on the basis of evidence brought to its notice by the complainant.

                    In addition complainant has also supported the allegations contained in the complaint by duly sworn his own affidavit which are corroborative of the facts contained in the complaint. Therefore, in the light of unrebutted averments contained in the complaint and documents on record, we are of the opinion that complainant successfully made out a case of deficiency in service by OP1.

                           After going through the whole case with the evidence on record what reveals here is the case of complainant is genuinely filed with speaking reasons and merit as being consumer as per the purport of section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act and OP is the service provider having failed in its statutory duty to provide adequate and effective services. The purport of legislation is well defined and statutorily takes care of consumer rights and cannot legally afford to a situation like the one confronted herewith in a manner where they are deprived of their rights as of consumer. The consumers have to come forth and seek for redressal of their grievance. The case of the complainant is also genuinely filed for seeking determination of his right by this Forum.

                     Therefore, in view of the foregoing reasons the complaint filed by the complainant for redressal of his grievance is allowed and OP1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.24,900/ i.e. cost of handset)  to the complainant. The complainant is also entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/-for causing unnecessary harassment and mental agony and litigation charges of Rs.5,000/-.The OP1 shall comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of costs. The complaint is accordingly disposed of and file be consigned to records after its due compilation.

Order per President                                              Khalil Choudhary

                                                                         (Distt.& Sessions Judge)

Announced                                                              President

28-08-2018                                                      District Consumer Forum

Agreed by                                                                Jammu.

 

Ms.Vijay Angral           

        Member                                                                                              

      Mr.Ghulam Sarwar Chauhan

      Member