BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
(DISTRICT FORUM)
UNOKUTI TRIPURA : KAILASHAHAR
C A S E NO. C. C. 18/5
PREM RANJAN DEBNATH, POSTAL ASSTT.
S/O SRI PROMODE RANJAN DEBNATH
OF KAILASHAHAR MDG,
KAILASHAHAR, UNAKOTI DISTRICT
…......COMPLAINANT.
V E R S U S
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR/CEO
AMAZON DEVELOPMENT CENTRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,
BRIGADE GATEWAY, 8TH, 9TH, & 10TH FLOOR,
26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESHWARAM (W),
BANGALORE-560055, KARNATAKA, INDIA
2. CLOUDTAIL INDIA PVT. LTD.
UNIT NO. 1, KHEWAT/KHATA NO. 373/400
MUSTATIL NO. 31, VILLAGE TAORU, TEHSIL TAORU, DIST. MEWAT
BILASPUR, MEWAT- 122105, HARYANA, INDIA.
….....OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
SHRI J. M. MURASING
PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER REDRESSAL FORUM
UNAKOTI DISTRICT::KAILASHAHAR
A N D
SMTI. S. DEB, MEMBER
SHRI P. SINHA, MEMBER
C O U N S E L
For the complainant : Self
For the OPs : Sri T. Debnath, Advocate, Sri N. Das, Advocate.
ORIGINAL DATE OF INSTITUTION :30/05/2018
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : -17/07/2019
J U D G M E N T
This is a complaint preferred by the complainant Sri Prem Ranjan Debnath U/S 12 of the C.P. Act against the opposite parties praying for granting compensation for deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
2. The case of the complainant, as narrated in the complaint petition, is that on seeing the advertisement of the OP No. 2 he had booked/purchased D-Link DSL-2750 U Wireless N300 AdSL2+4port wi-fi router with modem (black) amounting to Rs. 1682/-. The consideration was remitted to the OP No. 2 from the bank account of the complainant vide SBI Dharmanagar Branch, Account No. 0000034704182068 in the name of his wife. After some days the OP No. 2 had sent the booked item to the complainant, but the OP No. 2 without prior intimation to the complainant had changed the original booked item of the complainant and had sent other item, price of which is only Rs. 700/- and thus the OPs had done serious deficiency of service. Thereafter the complainant gave representation to the OP by post by collecting tracking report and also served advocate notice through his engaged lawyer, but OP did neither alter the item nor refund the money. As such, the complainant prayed for getting compensation from the OPs to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- since the OPs have been proved to be deficient in service
3. In response to the notice OP No. 1 appeared before this Forum and submitted written statement stating inter alia that ASSPL/OP-1 is a well reputed company and amongst others runs and manages and operates the website www.amazon.in. That the present complainant is bad for misjoinder of parties as OP No. 1 is not in the business of manufacturing/ selling products and as such it is only a facilitator and is not and cannot be a party to the case. That as per the terms of “conditions of use” on the website, the contract of sale of products on and through the website- www.amazon.in is strictly a bipartite contract between the purchaser and the seller, that is in between the complainant and the OP No. 2 and that the same forms part of the website and has been agreed by the complainant as a user at the time of buying the product. Complainant is not a consumer of OP No 1. In fact OP No. 1 is an intermediary. As per the complainant he purchased the product which was sold by OP No 2 on 21/07/2015 vide order No. 404-5286624-2840316 for an amount of Rs. 1682/- and in the complaint petition the complainant has alleged wrong delivery of the product and in the complaint petition the complainant claimed no relief against the Op No 1. In the alleged wrong delivery of the product to the complainant, OP NO 1 is no way responsible since OP NO 1 has no control or any say. That nowhere in the complaint the complainant has alleged any act of deficiency of service on the part of OP No 1. That the product is neither sold/ manufactured nor the price of it is determined by the OP No. 1 and therefore in the absence of any cause of action against the Op No 1 the instant complaint Petition is liable to be dismissed. That the complainant was duly informed about the process and procedure and specifically the role of the OP No 1 as an intermediary and the complainant was informed to approach to OP No 2 for any issue regarding the product and also provided the complainant with the contact details of OP No 2 and as such there arises no question of alleged deficiency on the part of the OP No 1 and as such OP No 1 is not responsible or liable for payment of any compensation for mental and physical harassment to the complainant.
4. OP No. 2 also appeared before this Forum and contested the case by filing written statement stating inter alia that Op No 2 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 carrying on the business of sale of goods as a retailer and as a registered seller on Amazon India market place, i.e, www.amazon.in. That the subject matter of dispute is restricted to certain alleged manufacturing defects in a product, i.e D-Link DSL-2750 U Wireless N300 AdSL2+4port wi-fi router with modem (black) amounting to Rs. 1682/- which the complainant had purchased from OP No 2 from the website. The complainant is perturbed by certain alleged manufacturing defects in the product which is manufactured by D-Link (manufacturer). The complainant is agitated by the deficient services allegedly provided by the authorised service center of the manufacturer i.e. OP No 2 on which OP No 2 has no control or say. OP No 2 is only a reseller of the product on the website and it neither provides any warrantee/ representation of the product nor is it providing any after sales service after the product is sold on the website and accordingly the instant complaint petition is bad for misjoinder of parties and has been unnecessarily inducted as a party to the case. That the instant Complaint is bad in law as much as no services much less after sales services have been provided by OP No. 2 under terms of manufacturers warranty, being the authorized service centre of manufacturer and not Op No 2 in the entire transaction is limited to that of selling of the product. That the liability to provide after sale services do not lay upon Op No 2 as it is neither the manufacturer nor the authorized service center of the manufacturer, who has the sole and prime responsibility to provide after sale services to the consumers under manufacturers warranty clause. Therefore, in the absence of any transaction between OP No 2 and complainant and/or any fee charged for any alleged services much less deficient, the instant complaint is not maintainable and bad in law, which deserves nothing less than outright dismissal qua OP No 2 as the product was purchased by the complainant, which was delivered to him without any demur. That it is pertinent to mention herein that the product was delivered and admittedly received by the complainant in a sealed box condition, which was put into use by the complainant without raising any allegation of the product being received in a defective condition. I say, that the Hon'ble may be pleased to note that manufacturer is not the authorized service centre of OP No 2 . That the complainant never approached OP No 2 in relation to alleged defects in the product and as such, the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal out rightly.
5. Complainant has examined himself as PW 1. He deposed that in the year 2016 he purchased a router through Amazon for an amount of Rs. 1682/- by making payment through Bank from the SBI account of his wife. After getting delivery of the said router he found that the router which he booked through the Amazon was not the same and as such he returned it by a Speed post to the Amazon in their address which he found in the internet, but he did not get back return of his money. He further stated that he waited for a considerable period and even lodged complaint against them, but he did not get back his money and thereafter he filed the instant complaint with prayer for getting compensation for Rs. 1,00,000/- for the deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Complainant further stated that he served Advocate notice to the Amazon seller through his advocate and also submitted copy of the same. The complainant caused exhibit the following documents:-
(i) Advocate notice in two sheets, - Exbt. 1/1 & 1/2
(ii) Invoice issued by Amazon in one sheet – Exbt. 2
(iii) Postal receipt relating to sending back of article to the Amazon- Exbt. 3.
(iv) Tracking report of Indian Post in one sheet – Exbt. 4
During cross examination of behalf of OP complainant stated that on seeing the product in the internet he booked the item through online. He admitted that he does not know whether amazon is an intermediary in buying and selling of products. He admitted that he mentioned in his complaint petition that he returned the goods as it was not in accordance with his purchase. He also admitted that he does not exactly know to whom he returned the product and he also stated that he does not know whether OP No 2 is the manufacturer of product or not. He further admitted that he received the product in sealed packet and he lodged complaint regarding the product in customer care and further admitted that he contacted through the customer care without making any correspondence directly to the OP No 2.
From the side of the OPs evidence has also been adduced recapitulating the same as put down in their written statement and as such for the sake of brevity the same is not repeated.
6. Heard arguments of the complainant and the OPs as well. Complainant argued that as he was not delivered the exact articles which he booked and on his return of the product to the amazon he was neither provided with the exact booked item nor refunded the money, the OPs are deficient in service and as such, he may be granted compensation for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as because of the activities of the OPs he had to suffer tremendous mental pain agony.
On the other hand it is argued on behalf of the OPs that the complainant received the article without any complaint and after using the article he returned the article back to the company ( OP No 2) on 21/09/2016 and it was received by the OP No 2 on 29/09/2016 and as such, as the complainant sent the item back to the company after about 2 months, it is presumed that he had used the item for a considerable period and as such, refund of the amount for wrong delivery of the item does not arise and the complaint petition should be dismissed in limine.
6. The only point required to be adjudicated in the present case is whether the OPs are deficient in service towards the complainant?
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one D-Link DSL-2750 U Wireless N300 AdSL2+4port wi-fi router with modem (black) amounting to Rs. 1682/- sold by the OP No.2 through OP No.1, Amazon Seller Services. From the complaint petition it is not revealed as to when the complainant received the article booked by him. However, from the Ext. 2, invoice, it is found that the item was sold to him on 12-09-2016. So, it can be conceived that he received the item within next seven days, i.e., by 19-09-2016. Since the complainant found that he was served with wrong item, he sent the item back to the company on 21-09-2016 by way of Speed Post and the item was received by the OP NO. 2 on 29-09-2016. In cross of his evidence complainant admitted that the item was in sealed condition and as such, the item whether wrong or exact could only be detected after opening of the sealed packet and when the complainant found that he was not delivered with exact booked item, he sent it back to the OP No.2. From the website of the Amazon(www.amazon.in) it is found that the item delivered by amazon has to be sent to the their company if wrong delivery is occasioned. In the case in hand the complainant sent the item back to the OP NO.2, not to the OP No.1, but OP No.1 and OP No.2 having tie up in business OP No.2 was under legal obligation to inform the OP No.1 about the wrong delivery of the item and return of the article by the complainant. From the record it is found that no communication was done from the OPs regarding the dispute with the complainant. Complainant also served Advocate Notice claiming refund of the amount of Rs. 1682/-, but even then no response was/is from the OPs. He was not refunded the amount. The silence of the OPs speaks that they were negligent in rendering service to the complainant. Complainant could not know as to what would be his next course of action. The OPs could suggest the complainant about the dispute or could inform about the repudiation of the claim even, but in not doing the same the OPs are found to be deficient in service towards the complainant. On going through the complaint petition, written statements submitted by both the parties and evidence and documents on record it is found that both the opposite parties are equally responsible for not refunding the amount of Rs. 1682/- to the complainant as both of them did not discharge their duties as demanded. Because of the conduct of the OPs the complainant suffered mental and pecuniary sufferings for engaging lawyer and being prompted to file suit against the OPs and as such, the complainant is entitled to compensation besides refund of Rs. 1682/- as cost of the router. The complainant prayed for getting compensation for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental pain and sufferings. However, since the complainant suffered mental agony and pain for lackadaisical conduct of the opposite parties, he is entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/-.
ORDER
8. In the result, it is ordered that the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs. 1682/-(rupees sixteen hundred and eighty two) as cost of the router and also entitled to compensation of Rs. 10,000/-(rupees ten thousand). The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to make payment of Rs. 11,682/-(rupees eleven thousand sixteen hundred and eighty two) with 7% interest from the date of filing of the complaint, I.e., on and from 30-05-2018 within 2(two) months from today, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to realize interest @ 9% per annum till the date of payment.
9. With this observation, the complaint filed by the complainant stands disposed of on contest.
10. Furnish copy of this judgment to the complainant and O.P No.1 & OP No 2 free of cost through their respective learned counsels.
ANNOUNCED
(J. M. MURASING)
PRESIDENT
(S. DEB) (P. SINHA)
MEMBER MEMBER
