IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/17/2020.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:              Date of Disposal:

13.02.20                                          24.02.20                               02.04.24

Complainant: Debjyoti Sarkar

S/O Sisir Sarkar,

ASA India International Microfinance Ltd.

PO&PS-Khargram, Pin-742147

-Vs-

Opposite Party:  Manager, Embassy Tech Village

8th Floor, Block B, Devarabeesanahalli,

 Vill-Varthur Hobil, Bengaluru East Taluk,

Pin-560103

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant             : Subhanjan Sengupta

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Prabir Kr. Banerjee

Present:    Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

         Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.

FINAL ORDER

Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.

            One Dhrubojyoti @ Debjyoti Sarkar(herein after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, Embassy Tech (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

                 The Complainant had booked a mobile phone ( Realme 5 Pro) with the OP worth Rs. 13,999/-. His order was accepted by the OP. Accordingly on 14.09.19 the box reached to the Complainant through the delivery person. When the Complainant opened the box the product i.e. the mobile phone was not there. Immediately the Complainant contacted the Flipkart and said the entire matter. They assured that a senior team will contact this Complainant. After few days when the Complainant contacted the consumer helpline, they gave a docket No.(1608572) to track the details. But nothing was available even after one month. The Complainant received a mail that the seller will not be able to fulfill the request and in case of any disagreement they asked for ID proof. The Complainant had sent all his details but to no good. Till date the OP had not resolved the loss which was done to this Complainant.

                 The Complainant had faced lots of trouble which was due to the negligent attitude of the OP.

                 The Complainant finding no other alternatives filed this instant case praying for directing the OP to pay Rs. 13,999/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- totaling Rs. 1,13,999/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment to this Complainant.

                 OP is contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the  case is not maintainable and the specific case of the OP is that the grievance of the Complainant is with respect to delivery of an alleged empty box instead of the order mobile Handset. It is most respectfully submitted that the Complainant has presented the instant complaint in a very manipulative and twisted manner. However, the true facts of this case are that after receiving alleged grievance from the Complainant, the OP did what expected out of an online intermediary and forward the same to the seller of the product. The OP within its role as an intermediary thoroughly assisted and guided in regard to his raised grievance. It is submitted that the Complainant was asked to produce the ID Proof and email was also forwarded asking for the Complainants consent for FIR purposes. However, it is submitted that as per the confirmation received from the logistic service provider the product in issue was delivered in intact condition to the Complainant and thus the return request raised by the Complainant could not be processed further. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant has failed to product any concrete and substantial documentary evidence in support of his averments. Further, even if we believe the averment made by the Complainant to be true, even then it is most respectfully submitted that the grievance of the Complainant should have been only against the Seller as only the seller was responsible to ensure delivery of correct product. It is further submitted that the OP, being mere an intermediary and not the Seller of the product sold to the Complainant, in no way, assumes liability for delivery of alleged empty parcel to the Complainant. Hence, in view of the above mentioned submissions, there is no cause of action against the answering OP.

On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point no.1

None appears on the behalf of the Complainant. On this point Ld. Adv. for the OP stated nothing. Moreover, we peruse the materials on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the submissions advanced, we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the OP. The Point No. 1 is thus decided in favour of the Complainant.

Point No.2& 3

            Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. Ld. Adv. for the OP submits that  the Complainant was asked to produce the ID Proof and email was also forwarded asking for the Complainants consent for FIR purposes. However, it is submitted that as per the confirmation received from the logistic service provider the product in issue was delivered in intact condition to the Complainant and thus the return request raised by the Complainant could not be processed further.

            From the tax invoice, we find that IMEI No of the mobile in question is 867491042688773. It is alleged by the Complainant that he received the box containing mobile in question but when he opened the said mobile box he found it empty. This fact has not been properly established by the Complainant. The IMEI No of the mobile in question indicates that the mobile in question was sent by the seller but it is alleged that the same has not reached the buyer though the buyer received the box of empty mobile. The facts and circumstances suggest that it is a clear case of theft or any other offence. It is not clear whether the Complainant gave consent to the OP for FIR purpose. Facts and circumstances suggest that there is no deficiency of the service on the part of the OP. Such being the position, we are of the view that the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

Reasons for delay

The Case was filed on 13.02.20 and admitted on 24.02.20. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case fails.

     Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/17/2020 be and the same is  dismissed on contest  against the OP.

        Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

Member                                                                                     President.