Date of Filing: 10.05.2022.                                          Date of Disposal:  04.05.2023.

Complainant                :Kumar Gaurav, S/O Sh Ghan Shyam, HQ 59 INF Div. Panagarh Military Station, P.S. Budbud, Debipur (W.B.)  Pin 713148.

-VERSUS -

Opposite Party            :1. Sri Sai Enterprises, Guru Gobind Niwas, Shukla Colony, Hinoo, Ranchi, Jharkhand, P.S. Ranchi, Pin -834002.

2. Amazon India, Brigade Gate Way, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalor, Karnataka, Pin-560055.

Present                                   : Mohammad Muizzuddeen             -Hon’ble President.

                                                : Mrs. Lipika Ghosh                         - Hon’ble Member.

                                                : Mr. Atanu Kr. Dutta.                     - Hon’ble Member.   

Appeared for the Complainant           : Complainant himself.

Appeared for the Opposite Party        : None.

F I N A L   O R D E R-Ex Parte.

            Today is fixed for passing ex pate order.

The complainant files hazira.

The record is taken up for passing ex parte order.

            On 10.05.2022 the complainant Kumar Gaurav has filed an application u/S 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019 against the OPs.

            The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he ordered one pair of Nike Shoe named ‘ Nike React Miller 2” vide order No. 40496168713333118 on 26.02.2022  to OP No.1 and the cost of the shoe was Rs. 11,495/- and same was paid to the agent on cash delivery on 5^th March, 2022.  On opening the packet, he received a different pair of shoes of same “Nike” Brand with same black colour but was of different model. He immediately called Amazon Service on 5^th of March, and complained about this. On this Amazon assured him to restore the matter in 7 days.  But even after seven days, the matter is still pending. Again he called Amazon on 13^th day of his purchase and he was told that dealer has denied to return the refund and the case is closed. He was shocked and surprised and still again he tried to approach Amazon and tried to resolve the matter but again he was disappointed by their response. . He was really harassed for the last three months, nor the shoe has been replaced nor the money is refunded to him.

            He prayed for passing an order directing the OPs to refund the purchase amount with compensation of Rs.50, 000/-.

            OP No.2 on 03.11.2022 appeared by filing Vokalatnama and as the OP No.2 did not file Written Version; the case did proceed with ex parte against the OP No.1. Though the item delivery was confirmed, which tantamount to service of notice, yet the OP No.1 did not appear. Accordingly, the case also did proceed ex parte against the OP No.1.

            In view of this, the whole case is hard ex parte against the OPs.

                                                           FINDINGS.

            The complainant, in order to prove the case, has filed evidence-on-affidavit and at the  time of filing this case, he also filed Xerox copies of all documents.

            On perusal of the evidence-on-affidavit, it is found that the complainant has corroborated the facts depicted in the complaint by his evidence and nothing can be disbelieved of the unchallenged evidence of the complainant. From the Xerox copy of Tax Invoice/Bill of Supply/Cash Memo(Original for Recipient) it appears that the order was placed on 26.02.2022 and Nike React Miler 2 Men’s Road Running Shoes (  Numeric_6) B09RKF2JDD(CW7121-005-6) HSN: 64041190 has been supplied in the address of the complainant and the price of the said article was Rs. 11,495/- . It is alleged by the complainant that on opening the packet, he found that a different pair of shoes of same “Nike” Brand with same black colour but was of different model has been delivered to him and immediately he called Amazon on 5^th March, 2022 and made complaint about this and though they gave assurance but did nothing  and again he called Amazon on 13^th day of his purchase and he was refused to return the shoe or refund the money,  saying the case is closed as the dealer has denied to return the same. In spite of it, the complainant approached the OP No.2 again to resolve the matter. Again, he was disappointed by their response. It is also found from the said Tax Invoice that article in question was sold by OP No. 1 to OP No.2 . From the fact of the case, it is very clear that the OPs committed deficiency in service to the complainant. Accordingly, they are jointly and severally liable for their acts   in this case.

            As a result, the case succeeds.

            Hence,  it is

                                                          ORDERD

That the Consumer Complaint No. 105/2022 be and the same is hereby allowed on ex parte against the OPs without any cost.

            The complainant is entitled to get refund of the purchase money of Rs. 11,495/-(Rupees Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Ninety Five only )  from the OPs and the complainant is also entitled to get compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for mental pain, agony and harassment caused by the OPs to him.

            OP Nos. 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay the above amount by an accounts payee cheque to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

            Let a copy of this order be given to the parties on free of cost.      

     Dictated & corrected by me.

                      President

     D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.

               Member                                             Member                                             President

     D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.   D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.           D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.