Hon'ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.

The case record is taken up for passing Final Order.

The grievance of the Complainant which is summarized in black and white is that as per advertisement of the O.P., the petitioner Samrat Roy booked One Plus 9.5G Mobile through the O.P.-1 Manager, Amazon Seller Service Pvt. Ltd. amounting to Rs. 51,999/- and accordingly O.P. sent the articles through Invoice No. HRDEL2179184911-2122 dt. 04.10.2021 vide Order dt. 04.10.2021. On 08.10.2021 the petitioner received the article through the O.P.-1 and after opening the article box the petitioner found two soaps only inside the box. The petitioner immediately sent email to the O.P.-1 to the extent that “You sent two soaps in place of mobile phone” and it was also mentioned that one Video Clip of opening the article box was in the custody of the petitioner. Subsequently, the O.P.-1 sent reply through email that “I understand that you have an item missing in your shipment. I am really sorry for the inconvenience caused.” But till today the O.P.-1 did not supply the mobile set despite receiving the full payment. After lapse of sometime the O.Ps intentionally did not send the mobile phone. Therefore the petitioner filed a complaint to the Revenue Cell but to no effect. Lastly the petitioner filed written complaint to the O.P.s on 08.11.2021 though Registered Post but despite receiving the complaint the O.P. did not supply the mobile set or refund the said money. The said activities of the O.P. tantamounts to unfair trade practice for which the Complainant filed the present case. The cause of action arose on 04.10.2021, 08.10.2021 and lastly on 08.11.2021. The petitioner therefore prayed for refund of the said money of Rs. 51,999/- or send the original mobile phone, Rs. 40,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs. 10,000/- for non use of mobile set and Rs. 10,000/- litigation cost of and any other relief.

The O.P.s appears to have preferred not to contest the case and as such this court vide its Order No. 04 dt. 15.02.2022 directed that the case will be heard ex-parte against the O.P.s. Accordingly the present case is heard ex-parte.

The Complainant in order to substantiate the case adduced evidence by filing evidence on affidavit and documents before this Commission. After perusing the entire case record it is evident from the documents that the Complainant placed an order to the O.P.-1 for purchasing the disputed mobile from the O.P.-1 Amazon Seller Service Pvt. Ltd. The Tax Invoice/ Bill of Supply/ Cash Memo reveals that One Plus 9.5G mobile vide Order 405-4393541-0793134 dt. 04.10.2021 was supplied against the price of Rs. 51,999/-. The plea of the Complainant that he paid the money stands unchallenged and un-discarded by the O.P. since they did not adduce any evidence or did not file any written version.

The letter/message by the Complainant with the heading Missing Issue also established the said specific allegation of non-receipt of the said phone and his demand to return the money if the mobile phone is not handed over.

The further document of the O.P. Company dt. 27.10.2021 also depicts that there was an investigation by the O.P. Company wherein it is admitted that the O.P. understood that the Complainant had an item missing in the shipment. He was really sorry for the inconvenience caused. But curiously enough the O.P. Company did not take the responsibility of refreshment or refund of that order.

It is also evident from the document of the Complainant that he further corresponded with the O.P. Company and left no stone unturned vide message dt. 18.10.2021 and raising further grievance from time to time getting 18.10.2021, 20.10.2021 and 21.10.2021. Finally the document dt. 08.11.2021 also asserted the claim of the Complainant through a letter dt. 08.11.2021 by demanding the mobile phone or returning the said advance price for the mobile phone. The Complainant also proved the track report of the Postal Department wherein it is shown that the item was delivered.

The payment sheet of the Complainant dt. 04.10.2021 through Axis Bank also discloses that a sum of Rs. 51,999/- has been debited from the Account of the Complainant.

The reply of the O.P. Company dt.17.01.2022 also discloses the veracity of the transaction between the Complainant and the O.P. Despite the denial by the O.P.s about the allegation in the said letter it did not make out any positive case against the specific allegation of the Complainant in as much as the OP failed to lead any evidence on their behalf.

Having assessed the entire evidence, in terms of the pleading of the Complainant the Commission comes to the finding that the Complainant successfully proved the case against the OPs upto the hilt.

The OPs could not make out any defence case by any written version or any documentary evidence to discard the specific averment of the Complainant.

Consequently, the case of the Complainant succeeds ex-parte.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the Complaint Case No. CC/60/2021 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the O.Ps.

The Complainant do get an award for a sum of Rs.51,999/- for supply of original mobile set One Plus 9.5G, Rs.40,000/- for deficiency in service, Rs.10,000/- for non-use of mobile set and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

O.Ps are directed to supply the said mobile phone One Plus 9.5G to the Complainant or in default pay a sum of Rs.1,01,999/- to the Complainant within one month from the date of passing the Final Order failing which the O.Ps shall pay an interest of 6% p.a. on the awarded sum along with the principal amount from the date of passing the Order till the date of realization thereof.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.

The copy of the Final Order is also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.