DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.392/2021
(1) Mr. Bharat Chugh, Proprietor
M/s Bharat Chugh Designs
D-30, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065
….Complainant
Versus
(2). Amazon India
Through its Head,
Mr. Amit Agarwal,
8th Floor, Bridge Gate Way 26/1, Bridge Ward Trade Center,
Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore-560055
Also at:
1. SP Infocity Main Street,
MGR Nagar, Kandancavadi,
Perungudi, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600096
2. Jayabheri Orange Towers, Jairaj,
Rd Number 2, Financial District, Nanakramguda,
Hyderabad, Telangana 500032
3. Ambience Tower, 6th & 7th Floor,
Ambience Corporate Office Tower-II, Ambience Island, Sector 24,
Gurugram, Delhi 122002
- Gadget India
C/o Amazon Seller Services Private Limited,
26/1, 10th Floor, Bridge World Trade Centre,
Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore - 560055
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 07.02.2022
Date of Order : 02.07.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Present: Ms. Subha Chugh, AR along with complainant.
Adv. Nikita Sharma along with Adv. Tanushree Chakraborty
for OP-1.
Adv. Aman Bajaj for OP-2
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. On the strength of his complaint, complainant has prayed for direction to OP to pay the cost of Geyser Rs.6,349/-, compensation for harassment Rs.90,000/-, compensation for the time consumed Rs. 70,000/- and Rs.60,000/- towards the cost of litigation, totaling to Rs.2,26,349/- with interest @15% p.a; to direct OP-1 to unblock the account of the complainant with immediate effect and allow him access to all his information; to restrict OP-1 from blocking a consumers access to his account and make provisions for on call ‘account specialist’.
2. Amazon Seller India Pvt Ltd. is OP-1 and Gadget India is OP-2 and M/s Sajal Associates is OP-3.
3. It is stated that complainant placed an order of Geyser on 24.10.2021 on the website of Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd, hereinafter referred to as OP-1.
4. It is stated that complainant received an email at 7:20 AM on 27.10.2021 informing him that the Geyser would be delivered between 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM. However, at around 2:00 PM a small untidily packed box was lying outside the house door of the complainant, bearing the Amazon tape and a label regarding the order placed by the complainant. Neither the complainant nor anybody on his behalf signed or received the said package. Complainant was confused as the package looked very small to be carrying a Geyser. The complainant unboxed the package and found an old worn out shoe, scrap paper, piece of plastic and a small wooden block. Complainant immediately called the customer care executive who gave him false assurances of a resolution . Picture of the box measuring 11x13x4 inches and the items containing therein is annexed as Annexure 3.
5. It is further stated that complainant downloaded the images from the CCTV camera which covered the front entrance of his house. The pictures of the van and the delivery person carrying the geyser in one hand are annexed as Annexure 4. Complainant having not received any communication from OP-1 called the customer care on 08.10.2021 whereby he was informed that no investigation has been done. Aggrieved, complainant communicated with OP-1 for redressal of his grievance but was informed on 01.11.2021 that his account has been closed.
6. Complainant tried reaching out to the customer care of OP-1 but to no avail. Complainant again emailed OP-1 asking for reasons and explanation behind the abrupt account closure and status update. It is stated that on 02.11.2021 the complainant received an email informing him that OP-1s decision to close the account of the complainant was final and that they were shutting down all the modes of communication with the complainant. On 05.11.2021, complainant received another email stating that the package delivered to him was intact and there was no resolution that could be provided to him.
7. Hence, the present complaint.
8. OP-1 resisted the complaint stating inter alia that the complainant had placed an order for Hindware Atlantic Ezro 25 Ltr Storage Geyser on 24.10.2021 with an independent third party seller i.e Sajal Associates (OP-3). Against the aforesaid order, an invoice dated 24.10.2021 for an amount of Rs.6,349/- was issued by seller duly indicating its GST and PAN Number against the said order. Since, the tax invoice was issued by the Seller clearly indicating that the transaction of sale was not executed by OP-1 but was between the complainant and the Seller. Hence, complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ qua OP-1. The payment of consideration towards product in question was made by the complainant to Seller in the Nodal account set up in accordance with the notification of RBI. Therefore, OP-1, as per the RBI directions does not charge the buyers on the E-commerce market place. OP-1 provides ‘free for all’ marketplace to buyers who have access to the internet.
9. It is next stated that OP-1 upon receipt of the complaint enquired into the issue of the complainant and arrived at finding that the product had been duly delivered to the complainant on 27.10.2021 in an intact condition. Same was communicated to the complainant vide emails dated 05.11.2021 and 09.11.2021, hence, the request for refund was denied. It is further stated that while investigations, it was also learnt that the complainant has sought for refund or replacement for many orders, which has been ordered from www.amazon.in. As the complainant was in violation of the ‘Condition of use’. OP-1 after further investigations blocked the account of the complainant and informed him vide emails dated 01.11.2021 and 02.11.2021. It is stated out of 31 orders that the complainant has placed through his amazon account, he has sought refunds or replacements in 13 orders and OP-1 has honoured all his past requests.
10. It is next stated that the instant complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties as OP-1 nearly operates the Ecommerce market place and not the seller or manufacturer of the products sold on its website and has incorrectly been impleaded as a party to the complaint.
11. It is thus prayed that OP-1 be deleted from the array of parties or alternatively the complaint be dismissed.
12. OP-2 filed its written version stating inter alia that the complainant had placed an order for geyser and after receiving complainant’s issue with regard to receiving scrap instead of the geyser ,OP-2 communicated with OP-1 and provided the Product Label, Invoice of the order, Pictures and the Packaging video which clearly corroborates that an agent of OP-1 had picked up the product on 25.10.2021. Label on the product clearly states that weight of the package is 13.70 Kgs and the said product is shipped by ‘Amazon Seller Services Pvt Ltd.’ (OP-1). The tracking history states that the product was picked up 25.10.2021 by the agent of OP-1 and was delivered on 27.10.2021.
13. It is next stated that OP-1 had received the product ‘Intact’ when it was picked up by agent of OP-1 on 25.10.2021. OP-2 is not responsible for shipping the product to the customer. It is stated that OP-1 had been in possession of the product of two days until the delivery on 27.10.2021. It is next stated that there are no specific averments against OP-2 in the complaint.
14. In view of the facts above, it is prayed that complaint filed by the complainant qua OP-2 be dismissed with costs.
15. Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. Submissions made on behalf of parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
16. Admittedly, complainant had placed an order of Hindware Atlantic Ezro 25 Ltr Storage Geyser on 24.10.2021, by paying consideration of Rs.6,349/- on the Ecommerce website of OP-1. The order of confirmation by OP-1 shows that the said product is sold by the Gadget India (OP-2). On perusal of the photographs taken from the CCTV footage of 27.10.2021 at 11:43:31 annexed as Annexure4 with the complaint, it can be seen that delivery boy is holding a small packet which cannot be said to be containing a Geyser weighing 13.70 Kgs. The photograph of the box placed on record shows that the box contains some ‘kitchen item’ whereas complainant received an old worn out shoe, a wooden block etc instead of the Geyser, he had ordered.
17. OP-2 by way of his emails has evidenced the fact that the subject product was packaged by OP-2 and received by the agent of OP-1. The plea of OP-1 stating that it is only an intermediary that provides a platform to the sellers and buyers for the purpose of transaction does not go well with the Commission. It is not in dispute that complainant had placed the order of the subject product on the platform of OP-1. It is pertinent to note that the complainant is not alleging any manufacturing defect in the product, complainant’s case is that he was not delivered the product that he had ordered.
18. This commissions finds OP-1 to be deficient in service on two accounts. First, the seller listed on the order confirmation email, received by the complainant was Gadget India (OP-2) whereas OP-1 in its reply has stated that the actual seller of the product was M/s Sajal Associates (OP-3), who has received the consideration amount from the complainant. The GST and PAN Number of OP-3 has been provided by OP-1. OP-1 is found deficient for not providing the correct information with regard to the third party (seller).Second, OP-1 has nowhere denied the responsibility to ship or deliver the ‘Geyser’ to the complainant. OP-1 is also found deficient in this regard as the product delivered to the complainant was certainly not what he had ordered.
19. Complainant in support of his case has placed reliance on Amway India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs 1mg Technologies Pvt. Ltd. & Anr CS(OS) 410/2018 wherein, it is stated-
“… are not merely passive players but in fact are massive facilitators. Platforms provide warehousing, logistical support, packaging, delivery services, payment services, collection gateways etc. ….”
20. In view of the facts and the judgement (supra), OP-2 is discharged from any liability and OP-1 is held liable for deficient services. Hence OP-1 is directed to -
(i)Refund Rs.6,349/- cost of the Geyser.
(ii)Pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment
(iii)Pay Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation.
21. The above stated amount is to be paid to the complainant within 03 months from the date of order, failing which OP-1 shall pay the above stated amount with interest @ 6% p.a till realization.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
