Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/827/2017

Ravinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India- Brigade Gateway - Opp.Party(s)

Yoginder Nagpal

10 Dec 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/827/2017
Date  of  Institution	:	28/11/2017
Date   of   Decision	:	10/12/2018

 

 

 

 

 

Ravinder Singh son of Lt. S. Ram Singh, Resident of Flat No. 1234/1 (HIG Flats), Sector 43-B, Chandigarh.

……… Complainant

 

Versus

 

[1]  Amazon India – Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram West, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560055.

 

[2]  Cglobal – 4/16, Souvenir Building, 15^th Road, Bandra West (West), Mumbai, through its Auth. Signatory [struck off vide order dated 30.08.2018].

 

[3]  Dell, 12/1, Embassy Golf Links, Business Park, Challaghatta, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560071 through its Authorized Signatory.

 

[4]  Dell Authorized Service Centre, SCO 98-99-100, 1^st Floor, Sector 17-D, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Authorized Signatory.

……. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:   SH. RATTAN SINGH THAKUR      PRESIDENT

SMT.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

          DR. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Yoginder Nagpal, Counsel for Complainant.
For Opposite Party No.1	:	Sh. Yugansh Siwach, Vice Counsel for Sh. Inderjit Singh, Counsel for Opposite Party No.1
For Opposite Party No.2	:	Struck Off.
For Opposite Parties No.3 & 4	:	Sh. Salil Sabhlok, Counsel for Opposite Parties No.3 & 4.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

          Sh. Ravinder Singh has filed this Consumer Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against M/s Amazon India and Others (hereinafter called the Opposite Parties), alleging that he ordered online one Dell Laptop for Rs.69,990/- from Opposite Party No.1, which was delivered by Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice dated 05.05.2016. The said Laptop from day one did not function properly & within period of 3 months, windows was reinstalled, faulty hard disk replacement was required and improper motherboard was tried to be fixed. In a span of one year, numerous problems existed in it, and most of time it remained with the Service Centre (Opposite Party No.4). On account of all this, the Complainant approached Opposite Party No.3 (Annexure C-3), who apprised him vide Annexure C-4 that the Laptop sold to him was Refurbished system. The Complainant accordingly, took up the matter with Opposite Party No.1 vide Annexure C-5, who in turn relegated the issue to Opposite Party No.2 vide Annexure C-6. Eventually, the Opposite Party No.1 declined the replacement request of the Complainant vide Annexure C-9. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service and indulgence into unfair trade practice, the Complainant has preferred the present Complaint.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.
3.      Opposite Party No.1 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that the Complainant bought the Laptop from the independent third party seller selling its products on the website operated by the answering Opposite Party. The answering Opposite Party is not responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers. The Sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      In view of the application moved by the Ld. Counsel, the name of Opposite Party No.2 was ordered to be struck out from the array of Opposite Parties, vide order dated 30.08.2018.

 

5.      Opposite Party No.3 in its reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, has pleaded that Opposite Party No.2 is not its Authorized Dealer. The Laptop was originally sold in USA in Feb. 2016 to Costco and the same was returned to Dell and resold to Cachet Works USA LLC in Mar. 2016 as a refurbished system. The system was imported to India via Parallel Channel without the knowledge of the answering Opposite Party and the service tag was transferred to India on 26.05.2016. The one year warranty on the Laptop expired after the lapse of one year period in Mar. 2017. When the system was resold in Mar. 2016 as a refurbished system, it was never returned to Dell. No issues whatever were ever reported to the answering Opposite Party. Thus, denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

6.      Opposite Party No.4 did not file any separate written statement. Sh. Salil Sabhlok, who is also Counsel for Opposite Party No.4 made an endorsement on the written statement of Opposite Party No.3 itself that that Opposite Party No.4 adopts the reply and evidence of Opposite Party No.3.

 

7.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

8.      We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

9.      In the present case, through their written statement, Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 have themselves proved the case of the Complainant, so far as the question of selling a refurbished Dell Laptop Complainant by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to the Complainant is concerned.

 

10.      Admittedly, vide bill Annexure-1 the Complainant purchased online the subject Laptop from Opposite Party No.1, which was supplied by Opposite Party No.2 vide invoice dated 5.5.2016 for Rs.69,990/-. Declaration letter and fragile indemnity letter, courier receipt counts for Annexure C-2, C-2/A and C-2/B respectively.

 

11.      Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 vehemently argued that Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for the products that are listed on its website by various third party sellers. However, we are not impressed with the argument put forth by the Ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1 for the reasons recorded hereinbelow.

 

12.      Since the product was sold at the platform of Opposite Party No.1, we are of the concerted opinion that Opposite Party No.1 is solely liable if the product sold by a third party seller on its platform turned to be fake/imitated/refurbished products. At any rate, Amazon’s (OP No.1) measures for countering fakes seems to be weak due to its lax policies and policing, which promoted selling of fake products, as Sellers could remain anonymous and know that they would face no legal recourse. Opposite Party No.1 must have its Brand Registry to keep track of legitimate brands and could use software to weed out fake/imitated/refurbished products. Why Opposite Party No.1 doesn’t do this is mind blowing and makes it complicit in the rampant counterfeiting on its platform. Thus, Opposite Party No.1 cannot be allowed to take a shield, to evade its liability on the ground that the Sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. Thus, it is legitimately established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. The Opposite Party No.1 has certainly and definitely indulged into unfair trade practice. Had, Opposite Party No.1 been vigilant in redressing the grievance of the complainant promptly, he would not have been put to unnecessary harassment and mental tension, who otherwise had to knock at the door of this Forum for seeking redressal by expending money on litigation. Thus, finding a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, we have no other alternative, but to allow the present complaint against the Opposite Party No.1.

 

13.      For the reasons recorded above, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party No.1 and the same is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed:-

[a]  To refund Rs.69,990/- being the invoice price of the Laptop to the Complainant, along with interest @9% per annum from the date of purchase, till it is actually paid;

[b]  To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the unfair trade practice and harassment caused to him.

[c]  To also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

          The complaint against Opposite Parties No.3 & 4 fails and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 

14.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party No.1; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] above from the date of purchase, till it is paid. The compensation amount as per sub-para [b] above, shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c].
15.      The Complainant shall return the Laptop in question to the Opposite Party No.1 after the compliance of the order.
16.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10th Dec., 2018                                                                     

 

Sd/-

(RATTAN SINGH THAKUR)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

       MEMBER

                  

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)                                                                                                      MEMBER

“Dutt”