Dhanaraj S/o Basavaraj Nadagouda v. The Manager, Apex System

allegation of rendering deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to him. Pray to award to refund the amount of Rs.12,225/- towards the scanner machine and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and litigation charges.

2) The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

Complainant on 03.10.2023 booked for his personal use had booked canon image formula P-20811 scan Tini Personal Documents Scanner, Black (9704B007/Boouk 4835U) (Canon Portable Scanner) for Rs.12,145/- through Amazon application, the said product is documents scanner. OP-1 is the seller, OP-2 has given platform to sell their product on their website. OPs promised the complainant that the product will be delivered on 11.10.2023. Wherefore the package was delivered on 17.10.2023. While opened the said package complainant was not found the scanner machine, instead of 2 photographs of Lord Ganesha and Goutama Buddha were inside the box immediately went outside and search for the delivery boy but he had gone by that time. Further, complainant contended that complainant informed the said fact to OP-2 customer care many times and even registered the complaint. There is no response from OPs. Complainant caused legal notice both the OPs on 01.12.2023 the said notices served to OPs. OP-2 replied vague. Therefore, it leads to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to complainant as such complainant failed this complaint seeking relief as shown in the prayer column.

3) After admitting the complaint, notices were issued to OPs. OP-1 remained absent, OP-2 made appearance through its counsel and resist the complaint by filing written version as follows.

2

4) The brief fact of written version of OP.No.2:

OP admitted that complainant place an order for a product i.e. canon image formula P-20811 scan Tini Personal Documents Scanner, Black (9704B007/ Boouk4835U) (Canon Portable Scanner) the seller i.e. OP-1 send the packed product and same has been delivered to complainant by securing OTP for extra layer of security during the delivery of certain orders. More so, this OP answered to the legal notice issued by the complainant and after receiving grievance from complainant. OP-2 client's customer support team determined that the said product has been duly served to the complainant more so OPs client shall facilitate a refund to complainant upon the successful return of the said product. The said facts have been duly communicated to the complainant via email dated 11.01.2024. Wherefore, complainant not opted for the same. Therefore, OP contended that the grievance officer impleaded as a OP-2 has improper and unnecessary for the proceedings. Therefore, if any liability with respect to the alleged delivery of wrong product lies upon the seller only and other allegation made in the complaint is denied by this OP. It is further denied that there is no deficiency in service on part of OP-2. Therefore, OP prays to dismiss the complaint against OP-2 since they are not rendered any deficiency in service.

5) After filing written version, case has been set down to lead the evidence. Complainant is examined as CW-1 who filed his affidavit by way of oral evidence and got exhibited 8 documents at Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8.

6) OP-2 is examined as OW-1 who filed his affidavit by way of oral evidence and got exhibited 7 documents at Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-7 and filed 3 citations.

7) After conclusion of evidence heard arguments on both sides.

3

8) We have perused the available materials on record. Now the points that arise for our consideration are;

POINTS

1) Whether complainant proves that OPs rendered deficiency in service to him?

2) What order?

9) Our findings on the above points are as under:

Point No. 1 : Negative

Point No. 2 : As per final Order.

:: R E A S O N S ::

10) Point No.1 :- It is crystal clear that complainant booked the canon image formula P-20811 scan Tini Personal Documents Scanner, Black (9704B007/ Boouk4835U) (Canon Portable Scanner) for his personal use and the packed box was delivered to the complainant on 17.10.2023 the said product is cost Rs.12,225/-. The same has been undisputed by OP-2. The main contention of this complaint is that when the said booked item was delivered. Complainant found that the booked item was not found in the package instead of Tini Personal Documents Scanner, instead of that 2 photographs of Lord Ganesha and Goutham Buddha inside the box. Therefore, complainant filed this complaint alleging against OPs regarding deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP-1 remained absent, OP-2 contented that they are the mediator between customer and seller. More so, they are responded complainant several times. Hence, they are not rendered deficiency in service to complainant.

11) Ongoing through the pleadings, documents and after hearing the argument, we are carefully gone through the evidence placed by the complainant and OP-2, OP-2 arrayed

4

as a mediator between complainant and OP-1. It is pertaining to note that as per the document produced by OP-2 as Ex. OP-4. OP-2 responded to mail send by the complainant on 11.01.2024 immediately. More so, OP suggested the complainant to return the package received by him as per Ex.OP-6. Therefore, it is clear that OP-2 not made any deficiency in service against the complainant. Moreover complainant filed his affidavit and examined as CW-1 and reiterated the contents of the complaint. Even complainant not produced the original idol photos and more so, he is also failed to produce any iota evidence to believe that he receive the photograph of lord Ganesha and Gouthama Buddha instead of Tini Personal Documents Scanner and complainant not follow the instruction given by OP-2 to return the same. Therefore in this juncture, we come to the conclusion that certainly point No.1 is in Negative.

12) Point No.2: In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

//O R D E R//

The complaint filed U/Sec. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 filed by the complainant as against OPs is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Office is directed to supply free copy of this order to the parties immediately.

(Order dictated on computer, corrected and then pronounced in the open Commission on 4^th day of January-2025)

(Smt. C.H. Samiunnisa Abrar) (Shri D. Y. Basapur) Woman Member. President.

5

-: ANNEXURE:-

Evidence on Behalf of complainant CW-1 - Dhanaraj S/o Basavaraj Nadagouda Documents on Behalf of Complainant

Evidence on Behalf of OP-2

OW-1 - Mr. Rahul Narayanan S/o Mr. M. Narayanan

Documents on Behalf of OP-2

(Smt. C.H. Samiunnisa Abrar) (Shri D. Y. Basapur) Woman Member. President.

6