Date of Filing : 12.01.2021
Date of Disposal: 20.07.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,B.Com. ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.53/2021
THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2022
Mr.M.Kumaran, S/o.Natrajan,
office at Race Towers,
Plot No.86A, Chowdary Nagar,
6th Street, Valasarvakkam, Chennai -600 087. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Manager, M/s.Amazon, India,
Chennai Zone, 40, 3rd Floor, SP Infocity,
MGR Salai, Perungudi,
Kanandanchavadi, Chennai -600 096.
2.The Chief Executive Officer,
M/s.Amazon INDIA,
Corporate Head Office India,
Brigade Gateway, 8th floor,
26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W),
Bangalore 560 055. Karnataka, India. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.Keerthana, Advocate
Counsel for the opposite parties : exparte
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 04.07.2022 in the presence of M/s.Keerthana Advocate counsel for complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte and upon perusing the documents and evidences produced by the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties in delivering wrong package seeking direction to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.13,230/- for the online purchase order and to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant by the opposite parties due to deficiency in service along with a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
The complainant who was a regular purchaser of goods in online mode from M/s.Amazon India/opposite party had purchased an “Collection Laptop Messenger Handbag Durable Briefcase Carrying Case for 15.6 inch Laptops &Note Books with shoulder strap Unisex Hard shall Durable” for Rs.13,230/-. The payment was made online and the product was delivered at the office reception of the complainant. The complainant when he opened the package was shocked to see that there was a broken pen stand made up of plastic. Immediately the complainant called the customer care of the opposite party and placed a return request and the photograph of the “warranty deliver package” was also attached. The customer support of the opposite party promised to refund after taking back the wrong package. On 05.11.2020 when the staff of the opposite party came to pick up the wrongly delivered product he refused to receive since the product was completely different one mentioned in the invoice receipt. Again the complainant approached the customer care executive and explained the issue of wrongly delivered product and they understood the issue and placed the return request from his side, but the return request was not reflected in the application of the complainant. Thereafter, return pickup was confirmed and they also informed that refund amount of Rs.13,230/- would be initiated shortly after taking back the wrong package. But no changes were made in the online application of the complainant with regard to the item description explaining the wrongly delivered product. Thereafter the return pickedup was again rescheduled after a month on 02.12.2020 at 07.00 -19.00 hours. Finally on 02.12.2020 the damaged goods were pickup but no entries were made in the complainant’s online application regarding the status of pickup or the process of refund. No convincing reply was given by the customer care executive when called and questioned by the complainant. Thus, after issuance of the legal notice the present complaint was filed for refund of Rs.13,230/- along with a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.15,000/- cost of this proceedings.
On the side of 1st opposite party though proper notice was served to him, he refused to get the notices as evidenced by the endorsements in the postal cover and hence this Commission had no other option but to hold that sufficient notice was deemed to have served on them. On the side of 2nd opposite party notice was issued by this Commission and though the notice was received by him, he did not choose to appear before this Commission and hence both the opposite parties were called in open court and were set ex-parte on 13.05.2022 for non appearance and non filing of written version.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents were submitted marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.
Points for consideration:
1. Whether the complainant is successful in proving that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in not refunding the amount on taking back the wrongly delivered damage product from him?
2. If so to what reliefs, the complainant is entitled?
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of his allegations;
The Tax Invoice/purchase receipt of Laptop Bags dated 03.11.2020 was marked as Ex.A1;
The bill of supply dated 03.11.2020 having the description of the product purchased by the complainant “AN Collection Laptop Messenger Handbag Durable Briefcase Carrying Case for 15.6 inch Laptops &Note Books with shoulder strap Unisex Hard shall Durable” for Rs.13,230/- was marked as Ex.A2;
The return policy enquiry from the opposite party customer care was marked as Ex.A3;
The refund request to the opposite party was marked as Ex.A4;
The legal notice issued to the opposite party dated 06.02.2021 was marked as Ex.A5;
The opposite party refusing to receive notice was marked as Ex.A6;
The acknowledgement for receipt of notice on the part of the Indian Head of the opposite party was marked as Ex.A7;
The photographs of the damaged pen stand was marked as Ex.A8;
We heard the oral arguments adduced by the complainant and also perused the written arguments filed by the complainant. The crux of the arguments was that the product ordered for purchase was different from the one which is delivered by the opposite parties and also that the opposite parties failed to make any entries in the online application regarding the status of pickup or process of refund even after taking back the damaged product supplied to the complainant. Thus the complainant after submitting certain decisions in support of his arguments had sought for the complaint to be allowed.
The documents produced by the complainant Ex.A1 clearly shows that the product ordered was “AN Collection Laptop Messenger Handbag Durable Briefcase Carrying Case for 15.6 inch Laptops &Note Books with shoulder strap Unisex Hard shall Durable PU Leather Briefcase Laptop Bag” vide Ex.A2 for which the invoice was made to the complainant. Further it is seen that the complainant had filed a return request when he was delivered wrongly a different product that to in a damaged status. These aspects were clearly proved by document ExA2 wherein the opposite party had clearly stated that “AN Collection Laptop Messenger Handbag Durable Briefcase Carrying Case for 15.6 inch Laptops &Note Books with shoulder strap Unisex Hard shall Durable PU Leather Briefcase Laptop Bag” was purchased by the complainant. Further allegation of the complainant was that though the product was taken back by the opposite parties till today no refund was given by them to the complainant. The said allegations remained proved as the opposite parties though received notice did not choose to appear and also failed to file any documents to show that the amount was refunded to the complainant. Thus, the complainant was aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties in not refunding the amount even after taking back the goods wrongly delivered to the complainant. Not refunding the amount paid by the complainant and also wrongly delivering the goods to the complainant amounts to clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus we hold that the complainant is successful in proving the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2:
With regard to relief to be granted to the complainant we order the opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.13,230/- within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Further the complainant was made to suffer, hardship and mental agony due to the act of the opposite parties for which he should be compensated properly and hence we order Rs.10,000/- as compensation to be paid by the opposite parties with cost of Rs.5,000/- .
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1&2 are jointly and severally liable
a)to pay a sum of Rs.13,230/-(Rupees thirteen thousand two hundred and thirty only) as refund amount within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;
c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant;
d) Amount in clause (a) to be paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which an interest of 6% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 20th day of July 2022
Sd- Sd-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 03.11.2020 Purchase receipt of the Laptop Bags. Xerox
Ex.A2 03.11.2020 Invoice receipt of the purchase. Xerox
Ex.A3 05.11.2020 Online complaint with opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A4 05.11.2020 Refund request to opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A5 06.11.2020 Legal notice sent to opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A6 ............... Notice refused. Xerox
Ex.A7 10.02.2021 Acknowledgement card for notice taken by the opposite party Indian Head Office. Xerox
Ex.A8 ............... Photos of pen stand. Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite party;
Nil
Sd- Sd-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
