NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Paras Jain – Complainant
versus
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. – Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.930 of 2017
Decided on 22.9.2021

IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Considered view that the Complaint filed u/s 12(1)(c) by the Complainant as Joint Complaint on behalf of similar situated Consumers not maintainable.
2) Amply clear that punitive damages u/s 14(1)(d) of the Act cannot be granted by the Consumer Fora in cases of breach of contract unless the act is so reprehensible that it calls for punishment of the party in breach.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 2(1)(d)(i) read with Section 12(1)(c) [Section 2(5) read with Section 35(1)(c)– Consumer Protection Act, 2019] – Complaint before NCDRC in matters exceeding valuation of Rs. 1 Crore – Complaint filed seeking refund of Rs.9,119/- paid towards purchase of Mobile Phone along with litigation and transportation cost of Rs.1 lakh, damages of Rs.743,00,00,000/- for causing legal injury, financial loss to the Complainant as well as innumerable Consumers - Filed IA seeking permission to represent numerous consumers under Sec. 12(1)(c) - Complainant contends that after using Mobile Phone for a couple of days, phone started heating up which compelled him to return the same per Easy Return Policy of the Opp. Party advertised on electronic & print Media - Alleged by the Complainant that the Opp. Party had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 743.9 Crores on advertisements and the same amt. has to be imposed upon them as punitive damages for attracting consumers at large – Findings of this Commission: Considered view that the Complaint filed u/s 12(1)(c) by the Complainant as Joint Complaint on behalf of similar situated Consumers not maintainable - Amply clear that punitive damages u/s 14(1)(d) of the Act cannot be granted by the Consumer Fora in cases of breach of contract unless the act is so reprehensible that it calls for punishment of the party in breach - Not a fit case for awarding exemplary punitive damages as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma Case(supra) and action/inaction of the Opp. Party does not warrant any punishment.

Held: It is alleged by the Complainant that the Opposite Party had incurred an expenditure of 743.9 Crores on advertisements and the same amount has to be imposed upon them as punitive damages for attracting Consumers at large by Misleading Advertisements. It is further alleged by the Complainant that the Opposite Party is involved in Unfair Trade Practice by making false promise and running misleading advertisement about Easy Refund of the Product. The Opposite Party is bound to disclose all the necessary information about its Product enabling the Consumers to take a decision as to whether buy the said product or not.

Having heard the rival contentions of the parties and after perusing the facts of the case, judgements referred to above and the Written Submissions filed by the parties, we are of the considered view that the Complaint filed u/s 12(1)(c) by the Complainant as Joint Complaint on behalf of the similar situated Consumers is not maintainable for the reasons recorded hereinafter and deserves to be dismissed.

From a bare perusal of the afore-extracted paragraphs, it is amply clear that the punitive damages u/s 14(1)(d) of the Act cannot be granted by the Consumer Fora in cases of breach of contract unless the act is so reprehensible that it calls for punishment of the party in breach, by imposition of punitive or exemplary damages. Even a compensation which is compensatory of the loss suffered has to be awarded taking into consideration the relevant factors such as the loss incurred by the Claimant subject to some guess work. Punitive Damages have to be granted only in exceptional circumstance where the action of the party in breach is so reprehensible that punishment is warranted. Thus, Punitive Damages cannot be taken into consideration while determining the Pecuniary Jurisdiction of the Fora created under the Act. Even otherwise, in the present case, the Complainant has purchased the Mobile Phone for a sum of Rs.9,119/- on 23.02.2016 just after the 16 days of the change in “Return Policy” of the Opposite Party on 07.02.2016. There cannot be a denial to the fact that some of the Purchasers are purchasing the products on the online website and after using the said product for few days, seeking the refund of the amount paid by them. This was main reasons because of which the Opposite Party changed its policy of Easy Return. In case the Complainant has received the defective mobile phone, the remedy was still available with him to get replaced the phone despite the change in Return/Refund Policy”. This Apart, the Opposite Party has also published in the newspaper, namely the Indian Express dated 10.02.16 about the change in its Return Policy with the Heading “Amazon no longer has a return and get refund policy for mobiles”. The said information was also published in NDTV Gadget360 on 08.02.2016 with the heading that “Mobile Purchased from Amazon India No Longer Eligible for Refund”. In so far as the option appearing in the Invoice Bill of the Mobile Phone regarding the refund, is concerned, we are of the considered view that since there was a gap of only 16 days from the date of change of policy, i.e. 07.02.2017 and purchasing of mobile phone, i.e. 23.02.2017, it was not possible to rectify the said mistake or reprint the Invoice Bill.

In these circumstances, in our considered view, it is not a fit case for awarding exemplary punitive damages as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Magma Case(supra) and action/inaction of the Opposite Party does not warrant any punishment. Consequently, the Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Complainant may be advised to seek remedy of his grievance before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. However, the time spent before this Commission from the date of filing of the complaint till passing of this order shall be excluded while computing the limitation u/s 14 of the Limitation Act in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute – 1995 SCC (3) 583. It is also made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.

(Paras 7, 25, 28 & 29)

Result: Complaint is dismissed as not maintainable for want of pecuniary jurisdiction