SAS Nagar Mohali


Sunpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)


Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)


14 May 2015


Complaint Case No. CC/716/2014
1. Sunpreet Kaur
D/o Sh. Gurmail Singh R/o H.No. HM 534 Phase-7 SAS Nagar Mohali
1. Amazon India
Through its CEO 2nd Floor Safina Tower Opp.to J.P. Techno Park no. 3 Ali Asker Road Bangalore Pin Code 560052
2. Amazon India
Through its Managing Director 2nd Floor Satina Towers, Opp. to J.P. Techno Park No.3 Ali Asker Road Bangalore. Pin Code-560052
 HON'BLE MR. Amrinder Singh MEMBER
For the Complainant:
Complainant in person
For the Opp. Party:
Opposite Parties exparte



                                  Consumer Complaint No.716 of 2014

                                 Date of institution:          24.12.2014

                                               Date of Decision:            14.05.2015  

Sunpreet Kaur daughter of Gurmail Singh resident of House No.HM 534, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Mohali (Punjab).






1.    Amazon India (Amazone.in.co), through its CEO 2nd Floor Safina Towers, Opposite to J.P. Techno Park No.3, Ali Asker Road, Bangalore Pin Code 560052.


2.    Amazon India (Amazone.in.co) through its Managing Director, 2nd Floor Satina Towers, Opposite to J.P. Techno Park No.3, Ali Asker Road, Bangalore Pin Code 560052.


………. Opposite Parties


Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.




Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.

Shri Amrinder Singh, Member.

Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.


Present:    Complainant in person.

Opposite Parties ex-parte


(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)




                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:

(a)    refund her Rs.4,652/- the price of the mobile handset.


(b)    pay her compensation to the tune of Rs.4.00 lacs for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.


(c)    pay her Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.


                The complainant has pleaded in the complaint that on 21.11.2014 she ordered with the OPs online for purchase of a new mobile set of XOLO Model A500  for Rs.4,652/-. The order was confirmed by the OPs vide reply dated 21.11.2014 and promised to deliver the mobile set by 05.12.2014 whereas the complainant received the mobile set on 02.12.2015 by making payment of Rs.4,652/- at the time of delivery.  On receiving the mobile, the complainant was surprised to see that the mobile set sent by the Ops was used one and was in second hand condition with scratches on its body. The office of the OPs at Sector 32 Chandigarh confirmed that the mobile set was a used one as SIM card was inserted in it on 26.08.2014. The complaint made a complaint in writing to the OPs on 02.12.2014 and requested to change the mobile set or refund the amount of Rs.4,652/-. The OPs vide e-mail dated 03.12.2014 apologized for this but did not exchange the mobile set nor refunded him the amount.  The representatives of the OP on 04.12.2014 flatly refused to refund the amount to the complainant till return of mobile set in question by the complainant to the OPs.  Thus the complainant has pleaded that non exchange of the mobile set or non refund of its price is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

 2.            Notices sent to the OPs through post. As per the report of India post, the notices were delivered to the OPs on 13.02.2015.  However, none appeared for they and they were thus proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 05.03.2015.

3.             Evidence of the complainant consists of her affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-5.

4.             In view of the decision of Hon’ble Uttrakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Consoritum Securities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Anjana Tyagi,  2013(3) CLT 570 by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as  Mathura Mahto Mistry Vs. Bindeshwar Jha (Dr.) & another,   2008 (I) CLT 566,  the OPs was given three opportunities to rebut the evidence of the complainant.  However, none appeared for them to rebut the evidence.

5.             We have heard the complainant and gone through the written arguments filed by her.

6.             Present complaint is a case of purchase of mobile hand sent through e-commerce from the OPs by the complainant. The order was placed by the complainant on 21.11.2014 for purchase of mobile hand set of XOLO Model A 500 for Rs.4,652/-. The OPs confirmed the booking of order vide email dated 22.11.2014 Ex.C-1. The mobile hand set was delivered to the complainant vide Ex.C-2 of Rs.4,652/- issued by the delivery boy on 02.12.2014. The payment of the said amount has been made by the complainant to the delivery boy. Once the complainant opened the sealed box of the mobile hand set after taking delivery, it was found to be second hand/used hand set having many scratches on its body. The complainant approached the service centre of the OP situated in Chandigarh and the service centre confirmed after inspection of the mobile hand set that it is a used one as earlier it was used on 28.08.2014. The complainant requested the OPs vide E-mail  dated 02.12.2014 Ex.C-3 to exchange the mobile set with the new one or to refund the amount of Rs.4,652/- which was followed by another e-mail dated 02.12.2014 Ex.C-4 of the complainant. The OPs vide E-mail dated 03.12.2014 Ex.C-5 accepted and acknowledged the request of the complainant for sale of defective/damaged mobile hand set. In the same e-mail the OPs have requested the complainant to return the mobile hand set to them and upon receipt, they will issue the full refund or alternatively the complainant could issue the instructions to the OPs to pick up the mobile hand set from her door step. The grievance of the complainant is that neither the OPs have collected the defective/damaged mobile hand set from her door step nor refunded the amount to her and that this act of the OPs is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has sought refund of the price of the mobile hand set alongwith interest and compensation.

7.             Since the OPs are exparte but the documents exchanged between the parties show the transaction. The grievance of the complainant regarding sale of defective and damaged mobile hand set and the intention of the OPs to redress the grievance of the complainant is sufficient to adjudicate the present complaint.

8.             Since the OPs have admitted the sale of defective/damaged product vide Ex.C-5, the next step for redressal of grievance of the complainant lied with the OPs who have agreed to refund the amount provided the complainant returns the defective/damaged mobile hand set or if so instructed by the complainant the OPs were to collect the damaged/defective mobile set from the door step of the complainant. The complainant has not shown on record the exercise of either of the options offered by the OPs. In that eventuality the defective hand set remained in the possession of the complainant and the sale consideration of defective/damaged product sold to the complainant remained in the possession of the OPs.  The OPs have failed to take any further steps in the eventuality when none of the options offered by them to the complainant vide Ex.C-5 has been availed by the complainant.  Definitely the complainant would not have mustered the courage to send back the defective/damaged article to the OPs with the apprehension in the mind that she will lose the money as well as the article or have further not opted to ask for pick up from the door step facility by the OPs as she would have an apprehension that they may never respond back to her request. Such an apprehension is well founded in the mind of an ordinary consumer who is dealing through e-commerce as there is no personal contact between the consumer and the service provider.  The OPs being in a better position to redress the grievance of the complainant in such like situation; have failed miserably to take appropriate steps to release the refund of the amount once they have accepted that the defective/damaged article has been sold to the complainant. The act of the OPs in this regard is an act of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.

9.             In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OPs to:

(a)    refund the price of the mobile hand set to the tune of Rs.4,652/- (Rs. Four thousand six hundred fifty two only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 02.12.2012 till actual payment.


(b)    pay compensation to the tune Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only)  on account of mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.


                Compliance of this order be made within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.


May 14, 2015.     


                                                                    (Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)





                                                        (Amrinder Singh)



(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)


[HON'BLE MS. Madhu P.Singh]
[HON'BLE MR. Amrinder Singh]
[HON'BLE MS. Ms. R.K.Aulakh]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.