Date of filing:- 10/10/2017.                                                                               Date of Order/Judgement:-26/09/2023.                                         

                                              DISTRICT CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

B  A  R  G  A  R  H

CONSUMER COMPLAINT  NO. 46 OF  2017

Sibananda Meher, aged about 25 years, s/o. Ram Chandra Meher, Resident of Kulipada, Deogaon, P.s./Tahasil/Dist. Bargarh.      

                                                                                                   Complainant.

-: V e r s u s :-

 (1)  Sairam Marketing No.1/B, indospace Logistics Park puduovoyal, Durainallur village,

       Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvalluvar 601206 (Tamilnadu).

 (2) Customer care Managefr Kraheja I.T. Park, Hi-Tech City, Madhapur, Hyderabad-400081.

 (3) Customer care Manager Amazon in India Ltd Brigade Gate way, 8th Floor 26/1

      Dr. Rajkumar Road, Maleswaram (w) Bangalore, Karnataka-560055.                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Opposite Parties.

Counsel for the Parties:-

For the Complainant :-                        :- Sri M.K. Satpathy, with Associates.

For the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 :-  :- Exparte.

For the Opposite Party No.3  :-           :- Sri Onkar Gujar with Associates.

                                                -: P  R  E  S  E  N  T :-

Smt. Jigeesha Mishra            .....       .....       .....       .....       .....       P r e s i d e n t.

Smt. Anju Agarwal             .....         .....       .....       .....       .....       M e m b e r (W).

Dt.26/09/2023.                                 -: J   U  D   G  E  M  E  N  T:-

Presented by Smt. Anju Agarwal,  Member (w) :-

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant for his personal use has purchased a Motorola Moto G Plus 4^th Gen (Black 32 GB) Model Mobile set bearing IMEI No. 358223074865318 by paying Rs. 13,199/-(Rupees thirteen thousand one hundred ninety nine)only vide Invoice No. TNMAA4/172354211/13593 in pursuance of to Order No. 1710991110/1509935 Dt. 04/10/2016. The Opposite Party No.1 is the seller of Motorola Brand Mobile sets marketed online sold products through Amazon. The Opposite Parties are the persons to look after the Consumer Complaint and provide Consumer service to satisfy Consumers of the products. After using the product for some months the Complainant could found that the set is unable to show the display besides the set is hanging and not functioning properly. The Complainant has raised his grievance before the Opposite Parties over telephone to solve the problem, but the Opposite Parties denied. As the mobile set was under warranty the Opposite Parties did not provide service. On Dt. 11/05/2017, a pleaders notice was sent the Opposite Parties but they remained silent. For the act of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant filed the Complaint before this Commission.
2. The Case of the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2  is that the Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2 did not appear before this Commission and hence, set exparte.
3. The Case of the Opposite Party No.3 is that the Opposite Party No.3 has filed its version and submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 provides an online market place where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The Opposite Party No.3 neither sells nor offers to sell any products and provides an online platform. The Complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer Act. The Complainant has not placed an order for any goods from ASSPL nor has the Complainant paid any amount to the ASSPL. The subject matter of dispute is restricted to alleged manufacturing defects pertaining to one Moto G Plus 4 Gen (Black 32 GB) (Product) sold by an independent third party seller i.e. Sairam Marketing which also goes by the name of Amazing Mobiles (Seller) on the website.

The Opposite Party No.3 is not the manufacturer or seller of the product. Hence, the Complaint is bad for mis joinder of parties.

As per the information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) the answering respondent is an intermediary and thus is entitled to an exemption from liability for the information/material hosted on its portal.

4. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant and the parties and it reveals that the Complainant besides the petition has filed only a pleader notice. No other documentary evidence is filed by the Complainant regarding the purchase of the aforesaid mobile.

Hence, as there is no other documentary evidence, the case is dismissed for default.

O R D E R

The Complaint is  dismissed against the Opposite Parties.

Order pronounced in open court on this 26^th day of  September  2023.

   Supply free copies to the parties.  

                                                                                     Typed to my dictation

                                                                                    and corrected by me.                                                                                           

I  agree,

( Smt. Jigeesha Mishra)                                                                    (Smt. Anju Agarwal)                                                              Dt.26/09/2023                                                                                           Dt.26/09/2023

 P r e s i d e n t                                                                                          M e m b e r (w)