Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/34/2020

Sapan Patel - Complainant(s)

Versus

1-1. Amazan India Registered Office - Opp.Party(s)

P.Pradhan, A. Sahoo & M. Meher

15 Nov 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No-34/2020

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Sapan Patel,

S/O-Sushil Patel,

R/O- Jarabaga, Ps- Mahulpali,

Dist:- Sambalpur, Odisha                                              ……...………..Complainant

                                                           Versus

1. Amazan India Registered Office,

Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road,

Malleswaram(W) Bangalore-560055,

Karnatak, India.                                                  

2. Narayanansha Ravisha, 144/62

Swamy Street, Chintadripet,

Chennai, Tamilnadu-600002                      ………………..Opp. Parties

 

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant       :-         Sri. B.Pradhan, Advocate & Associates.
2. For the O.P.No. 1,            :-         Sri.A.K.Sahoo, Advocate & Associates
3. For the O.P. No.2                        :-         Ex-parte

 

Date of Filing:20.11.2020,Date of Hearing :20.09.2022, Date of Judgement : 15.11.2022

Presented by Sri Sadananda Tripathy, Member.

1. The Brief fact of the Complainant is that the OP No. 1 who deals with all variety of day to day consumer articles/goods online and the OP No.2 is arrayed as party who has sold the mobile set and supplied it to the Complainant for and on behalf of the amazan.in.  The Complainant had ordered a mobile hand set to the amazan.in through online on dtd. 20^th June 2019 for supply of a Mobile phone of Samsung Galaxy A70 (Blue, 6 GB RAM, 128 GB Storage) pricing at Rs. 27,900/- with the option of pay on delivery and on receiving the order, amazan.in registered the said order of the Complainant vide amazan.in order number 405-6802692-3197926. The invoice of the mobile vide Invoice no. IN-650 dtd. 20.06.2019 is granted by the O.P No. 2 to the Complainant on making payment of the billing price of Rs. 27,900/- of the mobile unit which includes price of mobile @ Rs. 24,910.71+12% GST (Rs. 2,989.29) to the authorized agent on door supply, the Complainant was delivered with a mobile of Samsung Galaxy A70 model and the said mobile is as per the order placed before amazan.in. All of a sudden, the said mobile became automatically locked with a meesage from TVS Credit Services that “your mobile is locked due to EMI default of Rs. 32909.86 for the Loan A/C TN3000CD0125338 as on July-20 please pay the amount via online through our website to unlock your device”. The said message had also provided a passkey no.30774191 and EMI no. 355922100559604 to contact but despite repeated attempt to unlock the mobile, the Complainant could not able to unlock it. The Complainant tried his level best to contact the customer care personnels, and authority of the opposite parties from others phone but nobody came for his rescue. He received reply from the Ops that, the Complainant has purchased this mobile set through on line loan and he tried to convince them that he has purchased the mobile set on Pay on Delivery.  There after the Complainant enquired about the message of lock of the mobile set and could able to collect information that the OPs adopting fraudulent means to cheat the general public as a whole, the OP No. 2 is involved in selling the mobile phone through online finance to customer from TVS Credit Services and therefore the mobile of the Complainant has been booked under false finance to cheat him keeping in mind that the Complainant is residing far away from the reach of the OPs. Therefore the OPs have adopted unfair trade practice causing thereby financial loss, mental agony, harassment without having any fault of the Complainant and as such the OPs deserves to be penalized exemplary, so that they will not venture to cheat the innocent customers who are purchasing consumable goods through on line.
2. The contention of O.P No. 1, is that the complainant has incorrectly impleaded ‘Amazon India’ as OP No. 1 in the instant complaint filed before the Hon’ble Commission, whereas the entity operating the e-commerce marketplace : www.amazon.in is Amazon Seller Services Private Limited. The Complainant has filed the instant complaint without verifying the facts and exercising reasonable due diligence and therefore has wrongly impleaded the OP No. 1 as a party to the complaint. Therefore, all references to OP No. 1 hereinafter may be construed as references to ASSPL.

The O.P No. 2 is set expartee.

3. From the above it is found that the O.P No. 1 is a market place as per the I.T Act. So the O.P No. 1 has no deficiency in service whereas the O.P No. 2 is the seller who sold the mobile set to the Complainant and the O.P No. 2 has not taken any steps to solve the problem of the Complainant. Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the O.P No. 2 . Accordingly it is ordered:

                             ORDER

The case is disposed of on merit and on partly on contest. The O.P No. 2 is directed to return the price of mobile set i.e. Rs. 27,900/- or supply a new mobile set of same model to the Complainant, Rs. 50,000/- to the Complainant towards  deficiency in service and unfair Trade practice as Compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost & litigation expenses to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order, failing which the amount will further carry with 9% interest per annum till realization to the complainant.

Order pronounced in the open Court today on 15^th day of Nov, 2022.

Free copies of this order to the parties are supplied.