{"id":242489,"date":"2021-01-20T16:30:24","date_gmt":"2021-01-20T11:00:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=242489"},"modified":"2021-01-20T16:42:33","modified_gmt":"2021-01-20T11:12:33","slug":"amazon-to-pay-rs-45000-for-rowing-back-on-confirmed-order-for-laptop-by-law-student-cant-evade-responsibility-when-it-allowed-rockery-marketing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/20\/amazon-to-pay-rs-45000-for-rowing-back-on-confirmed-order-for-laptop-by-law-student-cant-evade-responsibility-when-it-allowed-rockery-marketing\/","title":{"rendered":"Amazon to pay Rs 45000 for rowing back on confirmed order for laptop by Law student, can’t evade responsibility when it allowed ‘Rockery Marketing’"},"content":{"rendered":"

State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Odisha (SCDRC):\u00a0<\/strong>Dr D.P. Choudhury (President) modified the compensation amount awarded to a Law Student in light of being subjected to ‘Deficiency of Service’ and ‘Unfair Trade by ‘Amazon’.<\/p>\n

The instant appeal was filed under Section 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/span><\/h3>\n

While the appellant was in his first year of law school, the OP had floated an offer for sale of a Laptop without Laptop Bag for Rs 190 against the price of Rs 23,499.<\/p>\n

OP had confirmed for placing of the order and two hours after receiving the confirmation, the appellant received a phone call from the OP’s Customer Care Service Department stating that the subject order stood cancelled due to the price recession issue<\/strong><\/span>.<\/p>\n

Since the complainant was in need of a laptop to prepare his project, he raised an objection for such cancellation.<\/p>\n

On not receiving any response from the OP, complainant issued a legal notice.<\/p>\n

Deficiency in Service<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Appellant had to purchase another laptop but suffered from mental agony for such cancellation, hence filed a complaint alleging the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.<\/p>\n

Complainant claimed compensation of Rs 50,000 and Rs. 10,000 towards litigation cost.<\/p>\n

District Forum\u00a0<\/span><\/strong>had allowed the complaint partly by directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs 10,000 for mental agony and to pay Rs 2,000 towards the cost of litigation.<\/span><\/p>\n

Hence, the aforesaid impugned order was challenged by the complainant\/appellant stating that the District Forum committed error in law by not deciding to direct to pay Rs 50,000 as compensation.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Decision and Law<\/span><\/h3>\n

Bench observed that “When there is an advertisement made for offer placed by the OP and made the offer as per the material available on record and complainant placed the order and same got confirmed, the agreement is<\/em> complete.”<\/p>\n

Another aspect to be noted was that, when the OP had allowed Rockery Marketing at his platform as per written version, the responsibility of the OP could not be lost sight of.<\/p>\n

Since there was a breach of contract by OP, OP is held to be liable to pay the damages.<\/p>\n

Commission agreed with District Forum’s observation that OP not only negligent in providing service but was also involved in unfair trade practice.<\/p>\n

Taking all the factors discussed above for consideration, Bench concluded that compensation awarded should be of Rs 30,000 for unfair trade practice and punitive damages of Rs 10,000. Further, with regard to the cost of litigation Rs 5000 needs to be awarded.<\/p>\n

On failing to make the above payments to the complainant within 30 days, the said amounts will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum.<\/p>\n

In view of the above, the appeal was disposed of. [Supriyo Ranjan Mahapatra v. Amazon Development Centre India (P) Ltd., First Appeal No. 492 of 2018, decided on 11-01-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Read More:<\/p>\n

District Consumer Forum directs ‘Amazon’ to pay compensation for \u201cdeficiency in services\u201d<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n