Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/105/2024

SAMITA DAS - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAMZON RETAIL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DHARM CHAND MITTAL

07 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/105/2024
Date of Institution	:	23/02/2024
Date of Decision	:	07/10/2024

 

Samita Das, aged 47 years, D/o Late Sh.Sushil Kumar Das, R/o Room No.108 A, Nivedita Hostel, PGIMER, Sector 12, Chandigarh-160012.

...Complainant

V E R S U S

 

1. Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Ground Floor, Eros Plaza, Eros Corporate Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

 

2. Amazon Pay Later through its Manager, C/o Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, Ground Floor, Eros Plaza, Eros Corporate Centre, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.

 

3.   IDFC First Bank Ltd. through its Chief Manager, Unit No.13/14, Ground Floor, B Wing, Technopolis Knowledge Park, Chakala Road, Opposite Holy Family School, Andheri East, Mumbai-400093.

 

4. ICICI Bank Credit Card Services Ltd. through its Chief General Manager, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra- Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051.

...Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Ujval Mittal, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Bhavraj Singh Gulati, Advocate for OP No.1 & 2.
	:	OP No.3 ex-parte.
	:	Sh.Ishtmeet Singh, Advocate for OP No.4.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the Mobile phone of the complainant was hacked by the fraudsters, consequently her email ID and ICICI Bank Credit Card was also hacked and misused by the fraudsters on 19.9.2023 by placing orders online for purchase of articles with OP No.1 through Amazon Account of the complainant (Annexure C-1). Initially apprehending suspicious activity, the orders were cancelled and informed vide email at 1:12 PM on 19.9.2023 (Annexure C-2), however, certain other orders placed by the fraudsters thereafter were entertained by the OP No.1 without verifying the credentials and demand was raised against Amazon Pay Later Account of complainant and is being claimed by OP No.3 on behalf of OP No.1 & 2, when particularly the orders placed using Amazon Pay Later Account have been cancelled and refund has been assured. Further orders were also placed by the fraudsters for purchase of articles through OP No.1 and payment was made using ICICI Bank Credit Card details of the complainant on 19.9.2023, subsequently the said orders were cancelled and refund was assured by OP No.1, but till date amount has not been refunded, which was to be refunded through the same mode from which amount was collected by OP No.1 & 2 and the demand for the said amount is being made persistently by OP No.3 & 4. The said act of demand makes it clear that amount has not been refunded by OP No.1 & 2 and the amount collected has illegally been retained by them despite numerous requests for refund having been made. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs dated 4.11.2023 and reminder dated 25.12.2023, but till date no action has been taken by the OPs (Annexure C-6 & C-7). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.

    Vide his separate statement dated 30.09.2024 counsel for complainant has stated that he confine his claim to the tune of Rs.40,325/- which was inadvertently written as Rs.43,363/- in the prayer clause, apart from the claim of compensation, litigation cost etc.

2.     OP No.1 & 2 contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complainant contacted ASSPL/Opposite Party's customer support team wherein all the Orders which were placed were cancelled and proper and efficient assistance was provided to the Complainant against the cancelled Orders. It is pertinent to note that considering the Complainant's grievance of her account been hacked, ASSPL/Opposite Party immediately checked internally and assisted the Complainant with sanitizing/suppressing her account and ensuring that all the Orders are cancelled to avoid any further issues. It is further stated that the payment of consideration towards the multiple Orders made to the Seller in the nodal account set up in accordance with the RBI Guidelines dated 24.11.2009. This notification of the RBI contains directions mandating opening and operation of nodal accounts, not maintained, or operated by intermediaries, for facilitating collection of payments from customers on behalf of the Seller. It is hence clarified that the payment made into the nodal account is not a payment made to the ASSPL/Opposite Party herein. Further, it is pertinent to point out that the nodal account is maintained and audited by a bank recognized for such purpose by the RBI, and not by the ASSPL/Opposite Party. The ASSPL/Opposite Party herein is not the account holder or owner of the nodal account and cannot transact at will without restriction on the said nodal account. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1 & 2.
3.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.3 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.3 despite following proper procedure, therefore it was proceeded ex-parte on 29.4.2024.
4.     OP No.4 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the present complaint against it. It is evident from the perusal of the prayer clause that no relief has been claimed against OP No.4 as the relief has only been claimed against OP No.1. It is further stated that as per the record of the bank, the SMS alert towards the said transactions were sent on customer’s registered mobile number on 19.09.2023. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.4.
5.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
6.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
8.     Admittedly, as per Annexure C-1, an email dated 19.09.2023, it was very well in the knowledge of OP No.1 & 2 that someone was attempting to reset the password of the account of the complainant. Not only this, even vide another email dated 19.09.2023 at 1:12 PM, it was informed to the complainant that an unauthorized person had accessed the account of the complainant and attempted to place an order. Resultantly for the sake of protecting the complainant, OP No.1 & 2 cancelled the order. Even an advice was given to the complainant to reset her password. Meaning thereby the whole activity of hacking the account of the complainant with OP No.1 & 2 was very well in their knowledge and due to this very reason, they cancelled the orders. It is out of our understanding that why only few orders have been cancelled & few were not.
9.     As per the case of the complainant order No.1,3,7,9,10,11,13 and 14 (dispute of it mentioned in para 7 of the complaint) are in dispute and knowing fully the same were not cancelled and in few cases even after getting cancelled the request of refund was not accepted by the OPs.
10.     Careful perusal of file shows that the order No.3,5,7 and 14 all are related to recharge and as per OPs the loss of the same cannot be made good by them. But notably the order No.5 to the tune of Rs.2999 is of recharge only which has been cancelled by the OP No.1 & 2 themselves. Hence, there is no concrete reason for what this recharge order has been cancelled, but other remaining order of recharge could not be cancelled. Now coming to dispute of order No.9 for the purchase of Rs.8499, as per the OPs the product returned was completely different product than the delivered product. In our opinion, it is a general practice of online platform that particularly a product before collection at the time of return is verified thoroughly by the collecting agent and the same is collected only after the same is found to be the same as the item delivered and in case of any difference, the product is never collected by the collecting agent. More so, this plea was never communicated at any stage to the complainant and seems afterthought of the OPs. Now coming to the next order No.10 of Rs.9889 as per Annexure C-8 page No.16 of Rejoinder there is mentioned of one email dated 27.9.2023 for the same order ID in which there is mention that your package could not be delivered and is being returned to us and full refund will be initiated. Contrary to the same another email dated 5.10.2023 is for offering of delivery package on 5.10.2023 and thereafter one more email dated 24.10.2023 depicting/informing full refund of Rs.9889 clearly falsify the stand taken by the OP No.1 & 2. Now coming to the next order No.11 to the tune of Rs.1589 admittedly, the order ID was wrongly conveyed by the complainant. Hence, the same could not be considered by the OP.
11.     With regard to order having ID No.405-4599745-5349125 for value of Rs.12,787/-, it is submitted that the return request was approved by seller on 25.9.2023 which was informed vide email dated 16.10.2023 making it clear that the said package was never delivered to the complainant and without verifying the complete status of the order a false and misleading averment has been made by OP No.1 & 2. There is no document revealing delivery of said product.
12.     We are of the considered opinion that all the transactions of sale, collection of amount, ensuring delivery of product, processing cancellation request, return request and refund of amount are controlled and managed by the OPs only. But in the present case, the act of OPs for not properly handling the situation despite having complete knowledge of suspicious activity and not taking prompt action on the complaint of complainant and ignoring the genuine repeated requests of the complainant and forcing her to indulge in the present litigation proves deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 & 2. 
13.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OP No.1 & 2 are, jointly & severally, directed as under:-

1. To refund amount of ₹40,325/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of this complaint onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her.
3. to pay ₹8000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

14.     This order be complied with by the OP No.1 & 2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
15.     The present consumer complaint against OP No.3 & 4 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
16.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
17.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

07/10/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member