Punitive damages cannot be treated as part of compensation for determining pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act.

1. The present Consumer Complaint under S.2 (1)(d)(i) read with S.12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the "Act") has been filed by the Complainant, Mr. Paras Jain against Opposite Party, Amazon Seller Service Private Limited seeking refund of the amount of 9,119 paid towards purchase of Mobile Phone along with litigation and transportation cost of 1 lakh and Punitive Damages to the tune of 743,00,00,000 (Rupees Seven Hundred Forty Three Crore Rupees) for causing legal injury and financial loss to the Complainant as well as innumerable other Consumers.

2. Pertinently, Complainant has filed IA 4627 of 2017 seeking permission to represent the numerous consumers at large under S.12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 .

3. The facts leading upto the present Complaint are that the Opposite Party is a Private Company running the business of E - Commerce across the Country by selling goods online via its official webpage www.amazon.in.

4. On 23.2.2016, the Complainant purchased a Mobile Phone bearing Model No. Coolpad Note 3 (White 16 GB) from Opposite Party at the selling price of 9,119 including shipping charges of 120. The Complainant contends that after using the Mobile Phone for a couple of days, the Phone started heating up which compelled him to return the same as per Easy Return Policy of the Opposite Party advertised on T.V. Serial, Media and Print Media. Since, the Complainant was not able to click the option of Return / Exchange on their website, he called at the Customer Support of the Opposite Party and was informed that they had changed its Return Policy on the items purchased on or after 7.2.2016. On 27.2.2016, he sent an email to the Opposite Party stating that they had always advertised about Easy Returns and that at the time of purchase, it had not been mentioned that the Refund / Return Policy of the Opposite Party has been changed and it has amounted to Unfair Trade Practice on their part. Vide email dated 2.3.2016 the Opposite Party apprised to the Complainant that if he has received a defective / damaged Phone, he would be eligible only for free replacement and not for refund.

5. It is averred by the Complainant in the Complaint that even in the Invoice Bill of the Phone, the option of returning the Phone was given to him and it was also visible in the Order List of the Complainant ever after the purchase of the Phone. He submits that such action / inaction of the Opposite Party is in violation of the Right of Consumers to be informed about the Product and to decide as to whether to purchase the same or not. The Complainant alleges that he purchased the Mobile Phone only being influenced by the Advertisement of the Opposite Party claiming "Easy Returns" and previously he had returned another Mobile Phone on 31.1.2016 and a Universal Car Windshield on 4.7.2016 and received the refund.

6. Complainant further submits that the Advertisement Standard Council of India (for short, ASCI), an Authority which is responsible for Regulation of Advertisements, in its decision in March 2016 in some Consumer Complaints held that "the advertiser's website communication provides the term and conditions applicable for the claim "Easy Returns". However, the TVC does not have any reference to terms and conditions. The claim "Easy Returns" was therefore misleading by omission of an appropriate disclaimer in the TVC."

7. 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 Consu