Orissa

Cuttak

CC/35/2017

Dr Bikram Keshari Rout - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

S L Kumar

24 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                C.C.No.35/2017

 

              Dr. Bikram Keshari Rout,

              S/O:Gayadhara Rout,

              Resident of Room No.183,New Gents Hostel,

              SCB Medical Colelgle,Cuttack.                                 ... Complainant.

                          Vrs.

 

Managing Director,

Amazon India,

H/O:Brigada Gateway,8^th Floor,

26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road,Malleshwaran(W),

Bengaluru,PIN-560055,Karnataka,India.                            ...Opp. Party.

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    22.03.2017

Date of Order:  24.01.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. S.LokeshKumar,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P.               :             Mr. S.Tripathy,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                               

            Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he had placed order for a Xiaomi Readme Note 3 mobile phone from the O.P on 4.10.2016 and  he had received the same on 11^th& 12^th of October,2016.  The said mobile phone had some erratic attitude like heating issues, automatic killing of apps  and a hissing sound from the charger.  The complainant had contacted the O.P in order to replace the said mobile phone but he was suggested to contact the Xiaomi Service Centre.  After repeated pursuance, the customer service agreed to replace the mobile phone set of the complainant and the process of the return was initiated. But still then the mobile phone of the complainant was not replaced inspite of all the efforts of the complainant.  It is for this, the complainant has filed this case before this Commission claiming a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the O.P towards his mental agony and harassment alongwith his litigation costs and also to direct the O.Ps to refund the cost of his mobile phone or to replace it and also for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

To support his case the complainant has filed copies of several documents together with his complaint petition.

2.         The O.P has contested this case and has filed his written version with affidavit wherein it is stated that the O.P is an online market place and the O.P as a party to this case is not the correct legal entity as the Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. is the competent person to be suedfor which it is pleaded to apprise the complainant for making necessary amendments to the cause title.

3.                     Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

The complainant has filed written notes of submission and the same when perused, it is noticed that the same is the reiteration of the contents of the complaint petition only.

Issues no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

The complainant had placed order for a Xiaomi Readme Note 3 mobile phone from the O.P on 4.10.2016 on payment ofthe consideration amount of Rs.10,999/- and he had received the same on 11^th& 12^th of October,2016.  After receiving the mobile phone, the complainant had noticed that the said mobile phone had some erratic attitude like heating issues, automatic killing of apps and a hissing sound from the charger for which the complainant had contacted the O.P in order to replace the said mobile phone but he was suggested to contact the Xiaomi Service Centre.  After repeated pursuance, the customer service had agreed to replace the mobile phone set of the complainant but the mobile phone of the complainant was not replaced later inspite of all the efforts of the complainant.  So there is deficiency in service noticed on the part of O.P and he is liable in this case accordingly.  This issue thus goes in favour of the complainant.

Issue no.i& iii.

From the above discussions, the case of the complainant is definitely maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as sought for.  Hence it is so ordered;

 

                                    ORDER

The case is decreed on contest against the O.P.  The O.P is thus directed to replace the defective mobile phone of the complainant by providing him with a new one of same model or in the alternative to pay the cost of the mobile phone i.e. Rs.10,999/- to him.  The O.P is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant towards his mental agony and harassment alongwith the cost of his litigation within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 24^th day of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.       

                                                                                                                                Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                            President

                       

                                                                                                                                                               Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                Member