BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 99 of 27.06.2022
Date of decision : 15.12.2022
Sahil Dharmani, resident of Village Sadhewal, PO Ganguwal, Tehsil Anandpur Sahib, District Ropar, Punjab
......Complainant
Versus
- Amazon India Private Limited, Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W) Bangalore 560055, Karnataka, India
- Lenovo India Private Limited, Ferns Icon, 2, Dr Puneeth Rajkumar Road, Doddanekundi, Mahadevapura, Bengaluru, Karnataka, 560037
- Appario Retail Private Limited, Kh No.18//21, 19//25, 34//5, 6, 7/1 min, 14/2/2 min, 15/1 min, 27, 35//1, 7,8, 9/1, 10/1, 10/2, 11 min, 12, 13, 14, village Jamalpur Gurgaon, Haryana, 122503 IN.
...Opposite Parties
Complaint underConsumer Protection Act
QUORUM
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Sahil Dharmani, complainant in person
Sh. Davinder Chaudhary, Adv. counsel for OP1.
Sh. Gagandeep Arora, Adv. For OP2.
None for OP3
ORDER
SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the Opposite Parties on the ground that the complainant has ordered Lenovo Ideapad Slim3 on 24.3.2022 through internet site Amazon India Limited. The whole amount of Rs.35,990/- was paid at the time of placing the order. When, the complainant received the laptop in question then he saw that the company was sold the defective laptop to him and the complainant returned the same for replacing it within a period of 7 days. Also the product, he received is also different as it was found at time of replacement the serial number of the laptop on invoice does not match with serial number of product in the box. He has raised the issue of same with the customer care and they asked to the complainant to return the product and he did accordingly but after that they refused to pay refund on ground that the serial number issue and the product returned are different whereas, the same is already communicated to the company. The picture of serial number of the product received is attached herewith. At the time of replacement, the complainant communicated the issue of serial number mismatched with the customer care, they told him to return the product and he did accordingly. But after sometime the refund is not proceeded. The complainant contacted with them again but first they said the investigation is being held and after that they told that the product, we have sent does not match with their records and they will not provide us with refund. Thus, alleging deficiency in serviceand unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant sought the following relief against the OPs:-
- To refund Rs.35,990/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase.
2. In reply, the OP1 has filed written reply stating therein that the product was delivered successfully in an intact condition and after the complainant raised his concern regarding receiving a defective product with the customer support of opposite party No.1, a refund on return was created for the impugned product. The impugned product was picked up on 5.4.2022 and when the impugned product was inspected upon return, it came to the knowledge of OP1 that the product returned by the complainant was a wrong product and not the product delivered to the complainant. Based on this finding, the refund against the return of the product was denied to the complainant, as the seller/OP3 never received the correct product. The OP1 proactively enquired the matter, scheduled the return/ refund of the impugned product and assisted the complainant in resolving the complaint and there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP1. It is noteworthy that the complainant returned a wrong product and the impugned product was never received by the seller/OP3. It is further stated that the complainant purchased the impugned product from the seller of the impugned product on 24.3.2022 i.e. OP3. It is stated that OP1 does not charge the buyers on the e commerce marketplace and consideration paid by the buyers towards purchase on the e commerce marketplace is paid directly to the independent third party seller from whom the purchase is made through the nodel account. OP1 provides a free for all marketplace to buyers who have access to the internet, hence providing a communication and hosting network to buyers to purchase products for sale and to conduct a transaction. OP1 does not initiate the transmission of such information, select the receiver of the transmission, and select or modify the information contained in the transmission in any way. The products offered for sale on the online marketplace, as well as information related to the same, are listed by the third party seller. Therefore, no deficiency is made out against answering OP and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against the answering OP.
3. In reply, the OP2 has filed written reply stating therein that the present complaint is totally baseless, misconceived, not maintainable, untenable and an abuse of process of law. The complaint had been instituted by the complainant against the OP2 under the Consumer Protection Act in relation to the Lenovo Laptop purchased by the complainant. However, the OP2 were not made available of details/document in support of the same during serving of complaint. The complainant has failed to provide the serial number of the Lenovo Laptop duly purchased by him and the copy of invoice in relation to the purchase of the laptop has not been provided to the OP2. It is further stated that the said documents are necessary for the investigation and adjudication of the case and the matter could not be further proceeded with the absence of the necessary documents/details. Rest of the allegations made by the complainant against the answering OP have been denied and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against answering OP.
4. The complainant has made statement to the effect that his whole complaint be read as his evidence and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP1 has tendered duly sworn affidavit of Sh. GS Arjun Kumar Ex.OP1 along with documents EX.OP2 to Ex.OP8 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP1. The learned counsel for the OP2 has also tendered duly sworn affidavit of Mrs. Anita Kapoor, General Counsel Lega, M/s Lenovo India Private Limited Ex.OP2/1 along with copy of resolution Ex.OP2/2/ and closed the evidence on behalf of OP2.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.
6. In view of the evidence placed on record by both the parties, the present complaint stands allowed. The OP1 is directed to pay Rs.35,990/- along with interest @ 7% per annum along with lum sum amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. OP No.1 is directed to comply with the said order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED (RANJIT SINGH)
Dated.15.12.2022 PRESIDENT
(RANVIR KAUR)
MEMBER
