KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.230/2023

JUDGEMENT DATED: 01.06.2023

(Against the Order in C.C.No.91/2022 of CDRC, Wayanad)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(byAdv. V. Bahuleyan)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

          This appeal is filed against an order dated 23.01.2023 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Wayanad (District Commission for short) in C.C.No.91/2022.  The complainant in the said complaint is the 1^st respondent.  For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to herein according to their status before the District Commission.

          2.       The complainant, an Architectural Designer, 3D Generalist and a VFX Artist who employs the use of various complex 3D Designing, Rendering and Animation Softwares such as the Unreal Engine Software to perform the day-to-day activities.  They include designing and animating architectural elements and rendering the same into images and videos, designing and incorporating visual effects (VFX) in short films etc.   For his work, the complainant requires very high central and graphics processing power, which requires the use of high-end processors, RAMs, fast storage facilities and very high performing Graphic Cards.  The above requirements of the higher specifications in computing power are indispensable for his work. 

          3.       The complainant had identified and selected a gaming graphics card which was particularly suited for his performance.  Its price was Rs.1,99,989/-(Rupees One Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine).  On 22.01.2022 the complainant placed an order for the said graphics card vide order No.405-2443457 3282765, generated through the online platform hosted by M/s Amazon India Ltd. (1^st opposite party).  He had made the payment of Rs.1,99,989/-(Rupees One Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine) to the 1^st opposite party vide the same online platform via internet banking.  Thereupon, the 1^st opposite party had issued an online invoice in PDF format vide No.IN-6 invoice details: BR-2062040345-2122 dated 22.01.2022.  A printout of the said invoice produced along with the complaint, is Exhibit A1.  1^st opposite party had also issued an order summary to the complainant wherein the name and the address of the seller was shown as that of the 2^nd opposite party.  The said order summary is Exhibit A2.

          4.       The 1^st opposite party had provided the tracking information about the order through their mobile application, which showed that the order was shipped on 22.01.2022 and that, the expected delivery was between 18.02.2022 and 03.03.2022.  On 16.02.2022 the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the shipment was getting delayed beyond what was expected and that he could cancel the order and claim refund.  According to the complainant, the tracking ID provided had also changed in the meanwhile.  The complainant’s efforts to communicate with 2^nd opposite party did not succeed.  Therefore, he contacted the Messaging Assistance Service of the 1^st opposite party through its mobile app and tried to ascertain the reasons for the delay.  He could not get any satisfactory answer.  The complainant cross-checked the tracking ID provided in the website of the 3^rd opposite party but the order placed by him was shown as untraceable.  In view of the above the complainant cancelled his order through the mobile app itself on 17.02.2022 and raised a claim for refund of the amount of Rs.1,99,989/-(Rupees One Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine) paid by him.

          5.       On 20.02.2022 the complainant received a notification from the mobile of the 1^st opposite party purporting to indicate that the order had been sent to the complainant by the 2^nd opposite party.  Images sent by the 1^st opposite party included the photo as well as scanned copies of some proof of delivery of documents indicating that the product ordered by the complainant had been delivered on 06.02.2022 itself.  The complainant realised that he was being cheated since the signature shown in the proof of delivery of document was not his.  The courier service also had changed from OP3 to OP4.  The complainant therefore informed the 1^st opposite party that the signature in the proof of delivery was not his.  Thereupon, he was asked to check with his neighbours, friends, family etc.  The complainant protested and questioned the act of the 1^st opposite party.  The expected delivery date shown was initially after 18.02.2022 itself.  Thereafter, on 21.02.2022 the complainant received an e-mail from the 1^st opposite party intimating that the refund claim made by the complainant had been investigated and declined.  The e-mail also informed the complainant that he could appeal against the denial of his claim to the appellate forum with the platform.  Though the complainant had preferred an appeal on the same day itself, the same was also rejected.

          6.       In the above circumstances, on 21.02.2022, the complainant approached the office of the 4^th opposite party at Kalpetta and enquired about the status of the package in the tracking ID.  It was thereupon revealed that the package delivered in the said tracking ID was some other item which was delivered to some other address.  The opposite parties had even gone to the extent of forging the signature of the complainant in the proof of delivery document for the purpose of cheating him.  The above acts of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant therefore claimed return of the money paid by him with compensation and costs.

          7.       The complaint was admitted by the District Commission and notices were issued to the opposite parties.  Though notices were served on the opposite parties they did not appear or contest the case.  Therefore, the opposite parties were set exparte.  The complainant filed proof affidavit and he was examined as PW1.  Exhibits A1 to A20 documents were marked on his side.

          8.       The District Commission considered the contentions of the complainant in the light of the evidence adduced by him and as per the order appealed against the complaint has been allowed.  Accordingly, the 1^st opposite party has been directed either to supply the product ordered by the complainant or to refund the amount of Rs.1,99,989/-(Rupees One Lakh Ninety Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty Nine) paid by him with interest @8% per annum from the date of the complaint.  In addition, an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs) has been ordered to be paid as compensation and an amount of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) as costs.  The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

          9.       According to the appellant, the order of the District Commission is wrong and liable to be set aside.  It is contended that the 1^st opposite party is not the manufacturer or the seller of the product that was ordered by the complainant.  They only provide a platform for such sale.  A number of other contentions have also been raised.  However, the appeal has to fail for more reasons than one. 

          10.     In the first place, this appeal is not filed by the 1^st opposite party in C.C.No.91/2022.  The 1^st opposite party in the complaint is M/s Amazon India Ltd.  No appeal has been filed by the 1^st opposite party.  This appeal is filed by M/s Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., a total stranger to the proceedings.  Therefore, this appeal is not maintainable at the instance of the present appellant.

          11.     Apart from the above, though notice was served on the opposite parties in this case,  they have not appeared before the District Commission or filed written version.  Therefore, they were all set exparte and the complaint has been decided by the District Commission on the evidence that was adduced by the complainant.  The said procedure of the District Commission is in conformity with the dictum laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. (2020)5 SCC 757.  Therefore, the District Commission cannot be found fault with for proceeding exparte in the matter.  It is also not permissible for them to be provided with any further opportunity to plead and prove their case.

          The above being the factual scenario, we find no grounds to admit this appeal or to grant any of the reliefs sought for.  This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

SL