DATE OF DISPOSAL: 05.09.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Supriyo Ranjan Mahapatra has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party ( in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he placed order on 12th December 2014 to O.P. in its website http://amazon.co.in. has floated an offer for sale of ASUS X450-cawx214d 14 INCH laptop (Grey) without Laptop Bag (reportedly sold by one of its dealer named “ Rocky Marketing”) for an amount of Rs.190/- as against its reported original price of Rs.23,499/- and there by offering a promotional discount of Rs.23,309/-. Immediately within minutes of placing of the order by the complainant, the O.P. was prompt enough to not only to acknowledges the order but has also sent mail dated 12.12.2014/ 10:27 hours to the complainant to his e-mail ID th December 2014 14:56 & 17:30 hrs intimated cancellation of the order on a bald pretext of “pricing issue” which is crystal clear of a severe breach of specific performance of the contract on the part of the O.P. Upon receipt of the e-mail communication with regard to the cancellation of the order and that too for no fault and/or no wrong on the part of the complainant, the complainant made his level best to contract the O.P. through the O.Ps toll free 24 hours costumer care help line as well as through e-mail but all went in vain and the O.P. did not bother to come forward to respond and/or resolve to the complainants issue. Having received no response from the O.P. the complainant finally was forced to issue a legal notice on 17th January 2015 through his lawyer but to no effect as the O.P. did not reply to the said notice nor took any action to resolve the issue of the complainant as was conveyed to the O.P. in the said notice. Acceptance of the order of the complainant and there after cancellation of the same without and valid cause and/or without any default on the part of the complainant, clearly amounts to severe breach of performance of the contract on the part of the O.P. and as such the O.P. is liable not only to perform the contract enter into with complainant vide its confirmation e-mail referred above and thereby deliver the subject product i.e. ASUS X450-CAWX214D 14 inch Laptop (Grey) without laptop bag but is also liable for damages for subjecting the complainant into unwarranted mental and pecuniary harassment and also is liable for cost of litigation. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to deliver the subject product i.e. ASUS X450-CAWX214D 14 inch (Laptop Grey) without laptop Bag to the complainant together with RTs.50,000/- towards damages, Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P. filed version through his advocate. It is stated that the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of this Forum and the same is liable to be dismissed. The present complaint does not raise any “Consumer Dispute” as defined under the Act, and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant placed order for Asus X450CA-WX214D 14-inch Laptop (Gray) without laptop bag vide order No. #404-7619826-8681114 on 12 December 2014 on the website of the OP, after duly agreeing to conditions of use and sale and other terms and conditions prescribed therein. Only after duly agreeing to and giving assent to “conditions of use and sale”, the complainant placed order for the said product. The order was cancelled due to pricing error and the complainant was informed via phone and Email about the cancellation of the order due to pricing error. No complaint whatsoever was received by the O.P. from the complainant and the complainant with an intention to concoct a story and gain unlawful returns against the OP has filed this instant case. The OP has acted strictly as per the “conditions for use and sale” and OP is in no manner responsible for listing and/or pricing of the products available on the website and the sellers are solely responsible for any pricing error on the website, to the total exclusion of O.P. No cause of action ever arose against the O.P. and there is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the O.P. It is clearly deduced that as per the agreed terms and conditions, courts and Delhi are vested with exclusive jurisdiction to try this complaint. Hence the O.P. prayed to dismiss the case in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for both sides were present. We heard argument at length and perused the complaint petition, written version and written argument and materials placed on the case records. It reveals that the complainant placed his order through online in the Website of O.P. i.e. http://amazon.co.in. of O.P. for a laptop for an amount of Rs.190/- as against its reported original price of Rs.23,499/- and thereby offering a promotional discount of Rs.23,309/-on 12.12.2014 by the O.P, with the option for the mode of payment as cash on delivery and the O.P. also sent e-mail on dated 12.12.2014 at 10.27 hours to the complainant’s e-mail I.D. confirming the acceptance of the order vide No.#404-7619826-8681114. It implies that the complainant has accepted the offer of the O.P. but on the same day the Customer Service Department of the O.P. through telephone informed the complainant that the subject order stands cancelled. It also reveals that the complainant after query regarding the cancellation of the order got to know through E-mail that due to “Pricing issue” the said order is cancelled.
Section 2(d)(1) “Consumer” means any person who:-
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”.
5. In the instant case it is clear evident that the complainant has accepted the online offer of the O.P. and the complainant has promised to pay the cash on delivery of the product as he had opted with the option for the mode of payment as cash on delivery. Hence, in our considered view the O.P. is not only negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant but also involved in unfair trade practice; as such we hold there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
6. In the result the complainant’s case is partly allowed against the Opposite Party on contest and the O.P. is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant along with Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only towards the cost of litigation within one month from the receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall carry 14% interest per annum.
The order is pronounced on this day of 5th September 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
