By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

1.         The complainant herein placed order for Samsung LED Smart TV on 08/06/2020 through online market place of www.amazon.in,the first opposite party and which was delivered to the complainant within two weeks. The TV was working till 15/02/2021. But when on 15^th February 2021, the complainant switched on the TV, the complainant could see certain lines on the TV screen and so he contacted the Samsung Service center, the second oppose party at Malappuram.  As per request of the second opposite party the complainant took his TV to the service center.   On examination by the second opposite party, he was told that the panel of the TV has been damaged.   He also said to the opposite party that there is no external damage to the TV.  Then the second opposite party explained that the defect is an internal problem. The product has got one year warranty but the opposite party did not provide service to the complainant and the executive of the opposite party demanded  7,000/ rupees for the replacement of the panel, while the cost of the TV is just Rs.14999/-. Hence the complainant requested opposite parties either to replace the panel free of cost or give him a fresh TV. The complainant also requests an amount of Rs.10,000/- as cost and 15,000/- rupees as compensation on account of mental agony and inconveniences caused to him.

2.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version.

3.         The first opposite party filed version in detail denying the entire allegations and averments against the first opposite party and also contended that the complaint is not maintainable and they are unnecessary party in the proceedings.  The first opposite party submitted that they are operating e-commerce market place i.e. www.amazon.in and the correct address of the first opposite party is registered office at 8^th Floor, Brigade Gateway, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore, 560055 and they are a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act 1956. It is submitted that ASSPL and cloud tail India Pvt Ltd are two distinct and separate entities. The first opposite party operates and manages the e-commerce market place i.e. www.amazon.in were independent third party sellers list their products for sale.  Any seller is free to list any product for sale and any buyer is free to choose and order any product from any independent third-party seller selling that product on the e-commerce market place. The first opposite party exercises no influence on interference in the process and on the relevant date there are over 5,00,000 such independent third-party product sellers, selling their products on the e-commerce market place. The opposite party is to make the e-commerce marketing place, user friendly for the sellers to list necessary details of the products and for the buyers for searching and browsing through the said product.  It is submitted that they are merely operates an e-commerce market place to facilitate sale transactions entered by and between the buyer and the independent third-party seller and it is strictly bipartite agreement. The submission of the opposite party is that they are not the seller nor the manufacturer and they are not providing service for any of the goods sold on its e-commerce market place. It is also submitted that they are neither be liable nor responsible for any action or inactions of seller or nor any breach of conditions, representations or warranties by the sellers or manufactures of the product. It is also submitted that they expressly disclaim any warranties or representations in respect of quality, suitability, accuracy, reliability, completeness, timelines, performance, safety, merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, or legality of the product listed or displaced or transacted on the content on the website. But they have taken precautions to avoid all these. They also submitted that they do not endorsed or support the sale or purchase of any product on the website.

4.         The opposite party submitted that they are follows a market place-based model of e-commerce and acts as an intermediary that only provides an e-commerce market place to allow sellers to interact with their buyers, without exercising ownership or any goods or indulging in the manufacturer or dealing in any goods. The submission of opposite party is that they are not inventory based model of e-commerce.

5.         The opposite party www.amazon.in submitted that  the Samsung 80cm (32 inches) wondertainment  series HD ready LED smart TV vide order bearing No.403-1203167-1927552 on 08/06/2020 from the independent third party seller i.e. Cloudtail India Private Limited , having its place of business at SND infra, shed No.K3, survey No.402/1f2b,  Padur Road, Kuuthambakkam village, Poonamalli, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 602107, in basis the listing made by independent third party seller on the e-commerce market place . The product was sold to the complainant by cloud tail India Private Limited.

6.         The submission of the opposite party is that the complainant has not made any specific allegations against www.amazon.in . But the complainant contacted the service centre of the manufacturer raising the defect, could be rectified by the manufacturer through the authorized service centre . But the opposite party submit that complainant fail to annex job sheet or service record from the concerned service center along with present complaint. It is also submitted the warranty of the product is always provided by manufacturer of the product and the complainant failed to annex the terms and conditions of the product.  The complainant approached the service center after a period of seven months of purchase and so the possibility of abusive usage is also there.  The opposite party also submitted that they are not realizing any consideration from the complainant and so there is no locus standi to file this complaint against www.amazon.in  as per Consumer Protection Act 2019.

7.         The submission of the opposite party is that the product ordered by the complainant is packed, sealed, shipped and delivered to the buyer by the independent third-party seller alone and no role is assigned to www.amazon.in  and in the present complaint, the independent third-party seller Cloudtail India Private Limited was only responsible for delivering the product to the complainant.  It is also submitted that the manufacturer of the product or the authorized service centre of the manufacturer and /or the independent third-party seller i.e. Cloudtail India Private Limited here in is the correct entity to resolve the issue of complainant as regards alleged defect in the product.

8.         The first opposite party quoted certain citations regarding the liability of e-commerce market place. The opposite party also submitted the terms and conditions of use of market place, the responsibly and liabilities including terms and conditions, as well as procedure for notice and claim of rights in the matter of infringement. In short, the prayer it to dismiss the complaint against www.amazon.in considering that they are only an e-commerce entity, providing market place to facilitate transaction between buyer and seller without realizing any sort of consideration from a buyer.

9.         The second opposite party filed version denying the allegations and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost of the opposite party. The second opposite party submitted that they are not aware about the averment that the complainant placed order for Samsung LED TV on 08/06/2020 and it was delivered to the complainant within two weeks etc. But the opposite party admitted that the complainant brought the TV before the second opposite party for service and the complaint was that while switch on the TV, the complainant could see lines over display and there was no any sort of damage on the external part of the TV.

10.       The opposite party submitted that they examined the complaint of the TV and found that there was crack to the internal display board and it was made to understand the complainant.   Then the opposite party forwarded request for the replacement of the same under the warranty coverage but the third opposite party refused to do so. The second opposite party is only a service center of the third opposite party and they are bound to do service as per the instruction of third opposite party, in accordance with warranty condition. The second opposite party submitted that the third opposite party is providing warranty and the fact was convinced with complainant. Hence the submission of the second opposite party is that there is no any sort of deficiency in service on the part of second opposite party and the opposite party is not aware of the cause for the crack on display. The submission of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint accordingly.

11.       The third opposite party filed version denying the averments in the complaint. The submission of third opposite party is that they are a company incorporated under the provisions of companies act 1956, having its office available at Samsung India Electronics Private limited, 6^th Floor DLF center, near Jantar Mantar, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 11001.

12.       The third opposite party is also submitted that the complainant is without any cause of action against the third opposite party and is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost in favor of the third oppose the party.  The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has hidden correct fact. The company serves its customer and provide a goods at the most competitive price and also enable most impeccable after sales service and there is no intent, whatsoever, to deny the same under any circumstances. In case any after sale service /quality issue is brought to notice of the opposite party / service center as a policy matter the same is immediately corrected as a matter of priority. The opposite party submitted that the complainant has by way of relief sought compensation /damages without any manner demonstrating that any loss has in fact been occasioned and in what manner computation of compensation claimed has been made.

13.       The third opposite party  specifically denies that the averment made in the complaint that he had purchased a LED smart TV through amazon online app that the function of the said was ok till February 2021 that on 15^th of that month, when he switched on the TV, there was lines on the screen that when he reported at the service center, it was told that panel is damaged that when told the service canter  that there is no damage seen on TV but they informed that it is an internal problem that there is no scratch on the TV that he was told to pay Rs.7,000/- towards the cost of  replacement of the panel that he is entitled to replace the panel on free of cost and to get 10,000/- towards cost  and also Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony etc.

14.       The third opposite party admitted that the complainant had purchased a LED smart TV through amazon online app which is manufactured by the third opposite party. But there is no evidence for any sort of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the third opposite party. The third opposite party also contended that the complainant has not produced any document to show that he has reported any complaint of the unit with the service center at any point of time. It is also submitted that the complainant has not submitted that when and what time he has reported complaint with the authorized service center as per warranty terms and conditions. There is no service history is available in the official record of the service center regarding the unit. So there is no reason to fasten any liability on the third opposite party by mere saying that there is deficiency in service on the part of the third opposite party. It is also submitted that as per the terms of the warranty policy, only issues arising within the scope of warranty alone will be answered by the third opposite party and in this present complaint the complainant has not raised any issue as per the warranty policy and so the opposite party is not liable to provide any sort of relief as prayed by the complainant

15.       The complainant and third opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The documents on the side of complainant marked as Est. A1 and A2. The documents on the side of third opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B3.  Ext. A1 is copy of view order details dated 08/06/2020 for Rs.13,999/-. Ext. A2 is copy of tax invoice dated 08/06/2020 for Rs.14,999/-. Ext. B1 is copy of power of attorney. Ext B2 is copy of technical report dated 25/02/2021 bright electronic Malappuram.  Ext. B3 is images 2 in number. The first and second opposite parties though version filed no affidavit filed. The counsel for the first opposite party reported no instruction also. Hence first and second opposite parties set exparte.

16.       Heard complainant and third opposite party, perused affidavit and documents.

The third opposite party filed argument notes also.

The following issues arise for consideration:-

1. Whether the product Samsung LED SMART TV of the complainant was defective or not ?
2. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
3. Relief and cost ?

17.       Points  No.1, 2 and 3

In this complaint there is no dispute about the purchase of Samsung LED smart TV from the online market place of first opposite party which is manufactured by the third opposite party for the consideration of 14,999/- rupees.  The complainant alleges the TV became defective and he immediately contacted the authorized service center of the third opposite party. And on examination by the service center the second opposite party said to him that there is internal damage to display and there is no any sort of external damage to the SMART TV. The defect was reported within the period of warranty but the second opposite party did not repair the TV but demanded 7,000/- rupees for the repair work and so this complaint filed.  On admission of the complaint though all the three opposite parties entered appearance, only third opposite party filed affidavit and documents. The first and second opposite partiers filed version but no affidavit is seen filed, hence they set exparte. 

18.       The contention of the third opposite party is that the complainant had purchased smart TV as stated in the complaint but the complainant has not produced any document to show that he has reported any complaint of the unit with the service center at any point of time. The specific contention is that the complainant has not stated that when and what time the complainant reported complaint with service center.

19.       The third opposite party has produced Ext. B2 and B3 documents to prove their contention. But Ext. B2 document is nothing but a technical report regarding the complaint of smart TV which was purchased by the complainant on 08/06/2020. The Ext. B2 document is created by the second opposite party the Bright electronics, Downhill, Malappuram who is the authorized service center of the third opposite party.  The remarks there in is internal panel broken. In this complaint though the second opposite party not filed affidavit, he has stated that the complainant had contacted the second opposite party and they had requested to the third opposite party to replace the smart TV since the defect was caused during the period of warranty of the product. But the third opposite party refused to replace the product and so the second opposite party demanded cost for service from the complainant. The submission of the complainant is that the cost of the TV was Rs.14999/- but the repair cost demanded by the second opposite party was Rs.7,000/-, hence this complaint is filed.

20.       The contesting third opposite party contended in the version that there was no reporting of complaint before the service center, but at the same time in the affidavit it is admitted that on 25/02/2021 the complainant had approached the service center with complaint of panel and same was duly registered and checked by the service center and on its examination, it was found that internal panel broken. It is also submitted in the affidavit that on further examination of smart TV it was found that the said damage was happened from the complainant himself and not due to any internal reason resulting any manufacturing defect but due to external reason for which warranty was not applicable, that is warranty void condition, that cannot repair without service charges. The third opposite party affirming that display was damaged solely due to external force and pressure from the part of the complainant and so this is a complete case of warranty void and hence the complainant is not entitled to repair it on free of cost but to bear the  service charges for repair as in warranty void condition .

21.       The document Ext. B2 does not support the averments in the affidavit but reveals the defect as internal panel broken and the demand was for replacement.  There is no averment in B2 regarding damage was caused due to any use of external force as contented by the third opposite party. Though the second opposite party has not filed affidavit, the averment in the version cannot be ignored since the second opposite party is none other than the authorized service center of the third opposite party. The second opposite party in the version it has categorically stated there was no damage was seen on the TV externally and they had requested for the replacement of the defective smart TV, but the third opposite party refused the same. The third opposite party produced so called images of the defective smart TV but there is no authenticity for the document. So, it is proper to arrive a conclusion that the smart TV purchased by the complainant was manufactured by the third opposite party through the online market place of first opposite party, turned to defective within the period of warranty and the manufacturer as well as the second opposite party, the service center refused to replace or rectify the defect of the smart TV, and so there is deficiency in service on the part of second and third opposite parties. The complainant has not raised any deficiency in service against first opposite party and it appears that they are only an e-commerce market place, facilitating transaction between the seller and the purchaser. In this complaint the allegation is manufacturing defect and so the third opposite party as well as the service center of the third opposite party are liable to redress the grievance of the complainant.

22.       The claim of the complainant is to replace the panel free of cost or give him a fresh TV along with 15000/- rupees as compensation and 10000/-rupees as cost of the proceedings. Considering the entire facts, the complaint is allowed as follows:

1)   The second and third opposite parties are directed to replace the defective smart TV with new defect free TV of the same specification or equal to the same specification.

2)  The opposite parities 2 and 3 are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardships to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

            The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above said entire amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till realization.

  Dated this 22^nd  day of July , 2022.

Mohandasan . K, President

PreethiSivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 and A2

Ext.A1: Copy of view order details dated 08/06/2020 for Rs.13,999/-.

Ext.A2: Copy of tax invoice dated 08/06/2020 for Rs.14,999/-.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B 3

Ext.B1: Copy of power of attorney.

Ext.B2: Copy of technical report dated 25/02/2021 bright electronic Malappuram.

Ext.B3: Images 2 in number.

Mohandasan . K, President

PreethiSivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

VPH

.