DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 231 of7.6.2016

                                      Decided on:                 23.1.2018

Amit Kumar Bedi s/o Sh.Rajinder Kumar Bedi, aged 39 years, r/o H.No.2, Mohindra Complex, Kheri Gujraan Road, Patiala(M-9417011969).

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ASSPPL) through their Managing Director, available at their Registered Office: Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, India[( Email:amznindpr@amazon.com]

2.       Amazon Seller Services Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ASSPPL), through  its northern region head, available at Sikanderpur, Sector 26, Gurgaon, Haryana.

3.       Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director(s)/Partner(s), having its regd. office at:S-405, L, ground Floor, Greater Kailash, New Delhi-110048,India.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                              

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh.Amit Kumar Bedi, complainant in person.

                                      Sh.Karandeep Sharma,Advocate, counsel for

                                      Opposite parties No1&2        

                                      Sh.Amit Trehen,Advocate, counsel for

                                      Opposite party No.3.   

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant purchased one ‘old spice’ aftershave lotion,50ml. from OPs Website www.amazon.in vide retail/tax invoice dated 31.5.2016.The price paid was Rs.120/-.OP Nos.1&2 is the website from where the complainant had orderedthe product and OP no.3 is the seller of the product in questin. OPs No.1&2 are fully responsible for the sale done by OP no.3 over theirweb portal i.e. www.amazon.in. The complainant received the package on 5.6.2016 and on opening the package, the complainant observed that the MRP of the product printed on the carton/packaging was Rs.110/-.On seeing this the complainant called the customer care of OPs No.1&2 and apprised them of the issue and on the asking of the representative, even mailed the problem to OPs No.1&2 alongwith the picture of the product received but to no avail. Thus, the OP adopted unfair trade practice by charging money over and above the MRP from the complainant. Due to this arbitrary, un fair and deficient act of the OPs, the complainant suffered a lot and ultimately he ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. In the written version filed by  OPs No.1&2 it is submitted that OPs No.1&2 is not a seller and is not involved in the sale transaction taking place between the seller and the customer. It is an admitted fact that the complainant placed an order for the product ‘old spice after shave lotion 50 ml’, on 31.5.2016 from the website of OPs No.1&2. On receiving the product, the complainant found that the price of the product was Rs.110/-. The complainant contacted the customer service team of OPs No.1&2 on 5.6.2016 and reported the issue. As a solution, the customer service team of OPs No.1&2 offered a refund of the extra amount that was charged but the complainant denied the proposal and disconnected the phone call. It is further submitted that the price of the product that is being sold on the website of OPs No.1&2 is listed by the respective sellers themselves and OPs No.1&2 are not involved in the same.As such, no deficiency or unfair trade practice can be attributed on the part of the Ops.After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. In the written version filed by OP no.3, it is clearly submitted that the complainant purchased an ‘Old Spice’ after shave lotion 50ml vide invoice dated 31.5.2016 which was delivered to the complainant on 5.6.2016. It is further submitted that on 5.6.2016, the Customer Service Centre of the website received a phone call from the complainant, wherein he described to the customer service centre executive that he had purchased one 50 ml. bottle of after shave lotion by making a payment of Rs.120/-, however the price of the product as printed on the carton/package was Rs.110/-   and demanded an explanation. The customer service centre after due verification informed the complainant that there was a genuine human error in the manual feeding of the price data of the product and that they were willing to refund the differential amount of Rs.10/- but the complainant did not want the refund of Rs.10/- being the differential amount but also wanted compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. It is further submitted that the OP is still ready to pay the differential amount of Rs.10/- and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his   affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
5. The ld.counsel for Ops No.1&2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Sh.Rahul Sundaram , Senior Corporate Counsel Litigation) at Amazon Seller Services alongwith documents Exs.OP 1 to OP4 and closed the evidence.

The ld. counsel for Op No.3 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Ms Swati Chaudhar, Legal Consel, Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. and closed the evidence.

6.      We have heard the complainant, the ld. counsel for the OPs and  have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. Ex.C1 is the copy of the invoice whereby the complainant purchased one ‘old spice’ after shave lotion 50ml through online service from the OPs on 31.5.2016 for an amount of Rs.120/-. Whereas from Ex.C3, it is evident that the price of the product was Rs.110/-.Thus the OPs have charged Rs.10/- over and above the MRP and the complainant is entitled to refund of the same.
8. In the present case OP no.3 is the seller of Ops No.1&2.As such OPs No.1&2 are fully responsible for the sale done by Op no.3 over their  web portal i.e. on www.amazon.in.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant as the act of overcharging the complainant over and above the MRP amounted to unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The OPs are thus directed to refund the amount of Rs.10/- to the complainant. OPs are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment undergone by the complainant  along with a sum of  Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order.  Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 23.1.2018               

                                                                   NEENA  SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM  GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER

​