Punjab

Sangrur

CC/590/2017

Richa Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon Development Center India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Tarun Goyal

14 Jun 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    590

                                                Instituted on:      02.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       14.06.2018

 

 

Richa Rani D/O Surinder Paul, Resident of House No.587, Street No.4, Gobindpura Colony, Sangrur, District Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.             Amazon Seller Services India Pvt. Ltd. 2^nd Floor, Safina Towers, Opposite to JP Techno Park No.3, Ali Asker Road, Bangalore-560052 through its M.D.

2.             Empire S. Registered Office at First Floor, EA1/13, Inderpuri, New Delhi-110012.

3.             Apple India Pvt. Ltd. 19^th Floor, Concorde Tower ‘C’ UB City No.24, Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore-560001 State Karnataka through its M.D.

                                                        …Opposite parties

For the complainant    :       Shri Tarun Goyal, Advocate.

For OP No.1              :       Shri P.S.Sidhu, Advocate

For OP No.3              :       Shri Sandip Goyal, Advocate.

For OP No.2              :       Exparte.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Ms. Richa Rani, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OP number 1 by ordering one Apple Macbook Pro MLW72HN/A Laptop 2016 (Core i7-2.6GHz/16GB/256GB/Macossierra/2GB Graphic/touch Bar) Silver for Rs.1,74,480/- and the order of the same was confirmed by OP number 1 via email dated 24.8.2017.  The complainant also received a SMS on 30.8.2017 saying that the parcel will be delivered to the complainant 30.8.2017, but the grievance of the complainant is that after receipt of the parcel, when she opened the same, it was found that the parcel was containing marbles/stone and the complainant immediately made a call to the OP number 1 saying about the same and she also requested for refund of the amount.  But, the complainant was shocked to receive a mail dated 17.9.2017 from the OP, whereby the Op rejected the claim of the complainant by stating that they have checked all the details and the product was delivered as per the description. The complainant though requested the OPs for refund of the amount, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund the purchase price of the laptop in question i.e. Rs.1,78,480/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further  to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             Record shows that the OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such, the OP number 2 was proceeded exparte.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 1, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the OP number 1 does not sell or offer to sell any products and it merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party seller list their products for sale, that the OP number 1 is an intermediary as per the information Technology Act, 2000 and compiles with all the obligations laid down for intermediary in the information technology. Apart from that preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not a consumer under the definition of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the complainant has not bought any goods from the OP number 1, that the complaint is not maintainable against OP number 1. However, as per the records available with OP number 1, the product has been successfully delivered, given the aforesaid facts, it appears that the complainant seems to be a victim of a fraud.  On merits, it is stated that the product was given in the intact condition and therefore, the complainant’s claim for refund has been denied.   It is stated that the delivery of the product was given as it was received from the seller and after inquiry it was found that the item was delivered intact.  Lastly, OP number 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

4.             In reply filed by Ops number 3, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has neither provided any details of the IMEI number nor serial number of the alleged Macbook Pro and in the absence of the same, the claim of the complainant is not legal as the identity of the said product has not been established by the complainant, that the complaint is malafide, devoid of any merit and contradicts established principles of law, that the complainant is also guilty of materially concealing and suppressing material facts and has approached this Forum with unclean hands with the sole intent of deceiving this Forum.  The onus to prove allegations lie on the complainant and hence the complainant may be directed to furnish and provide her allegations levelled in the complaint.  On merits, it is stated that the complainant has failed to provide an IMEI number or serial number to ensure that he actually purchased an Macbook. Any person purchasing a Macbook from a genuine reseller of apple India will have the details of the Macbook recorded with the Apple India and each Macbook has a unique IMEI number and serial number which establishes the identity and model of the said iphone.  Lastly, the OP number 3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

5.             Record shows that the OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit along with Annexure Ex.OPW/1 to Ex.OP1/4 and closed evidence.  The learned counsel for OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 to Ex.OP3/2 affidavits and closed evidence.

 

7.             We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the documents produced on the file by the complainant. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

8.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant placed an order for purchase of one Apple Macbook Pro MLW72HN/A Laptop 2016(Core i7.2.6GHz) with the OP number 1 and paid an amount of Rs.1,78,480/- to the OP number 1 and the order was to reach on 30.8.2017 to the complainant.  In the present case, the grievance of the complainant is that when she opened the parcel received from the OPs, she found that instead of laptop, the parcel was containing marbles/stones, as such the complainant immediately approached the OP number 1 and told about the same.  To support this contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has produced on record the affidavit Ex.C-1 on record and further produced Ex.C-3 copy of bill/invoice dated 21.8.2017 and further Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 are the copies of emails stating that the complainant has received the box containing marbles instead of the laptop. But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant received the marble/stones instead of the laptop in question, as the complainant has not produced any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence to support such a contention. Further the complainant has not produced on record any video showing opening of the packet containing the laptop in question received from the OPs and further to show that there were marble/stones in the packet in question at the time of opening of the same.  Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case of any negligence on the part of the OPs.

 

 

9.             In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 14, 2018.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                          

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member

 

 

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                  Member