Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Ankush Kalra has brought the instant complaint under section 12(1) read with section 2 C (i), (ii) and (iii) of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that Opposite Party No.1 is leading online merchant for all type of goods, whereas Opposite Party No. 2 is an authorized selling agent of certain products of Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.3  is authorized service centre for Sony Electronics within the jurisdiction of this Forum. It is averred that the complainant purchased Sony Play Station 3 12 GB from Opposite Party No.1 on 24.4.2016 which was sold by Opposite Party No. 2 for Rs.13,900/- vide order No.403-2083771.  The moment the complainant received the parcel containing the product on 6.5.2016, he was shocked to see no MRP, no manufacture stamp and no invoice inside the box and to add to his agony when the complainant turned on the product the controller (Wireless remote) was not working properly despite charging it fully. Feeling cheated and duped by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 the complainant filed return of the product on the website of Opposite Party No.1 receiving which Opposite Party No.1 sent an email to the complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 directing both to comply with the ret urn formalities, but the complainant was never heard by Opposite Party No. 2 as directed by Opposite Party No.1 as a result of which the complainant filed an Amazon a to z guarantee claim on the website of Opposite Party No.1 which was confirmed  by an email reply from Opposite Party No.1. The agonishing journey of the complainant started on 16.5.2016 when Opposite Party No.1 asked the complainant to send an invoice of the product alongwith a document of the service centre stating the product  is in the faulty condition as mentioned by the complainant in his emails. The complainant mentioned his concern over visiting the service centre which is almost 50 kilometers from the place where the complainant resides and moreover the seller never sent any invoice, so the service centre will not entertain any complaint without any invoice. On listening to the genuine problems of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 advised Opposite Party No. 2 in an email dated 25.5.2016 to issue an invoice to the complainant. After receiving the invoice from Opposite Party No. 2, the complainant took a print out of the shipping lebel and sent the product back to Opposite Party No. 2 as advised via registered post on 28.5.2016 but to the shock of the complainant, Opposite Party No. 2 never claimed the parcel and sent it back. The complainant further wrote to Opposite Party No.1 regarding no receiving of the product by Opposite Party No. 2 upon which the Opposite Party No.1 asked for 5 business days to further review the case. Feeling duped the complainant also wrote an email to country head  of the amazon.in who replied promptly and assured a solution. The agonishing journey of the complainant as further aggravated when the complainant went to premises of Opposite Party No.3 and asked for the inspection of the product and to the utter surprise of the complainant he was told by 3d by 3 that the bill is not valid and the product has no warranty on it. The product is still lying with the complainant and despite repeated emails no claim has been given by Opposite Party No.1. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and 2 are guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant and have miserably failed in discharging their responsibility at the time of transaction. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,900/-  spent on buying the product.

b)      To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment.

c)       To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

d)      Pass such other order as this Forum may deem fit  in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint.        

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that Opposite Party No.1 neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves  (nor Opposite Party No.1) are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. Opposite Party No.1 is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers, nor does Opposite Party No.1 intervene or influence any customers in any manner.  Opposite Party No.1 is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. The present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of this Forum and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.  It is averred that  the complainant has placed an order for the product in question from the seller from the website of the Opposite Party No.1 on 24.4.2016. Though the website is managed and operated by Opposite Party No.1, but the transaction is between the seller and buyer which is governed by Conditions of Use enumerated on the website of the Opposite Party No.1. It is stated that  the complainant responded on 28.5.2016 that he has sent the item via India Post with the tracking number CPI158256838IN and the same was responded by the Buyer Guarantee Team on May 31, 2016. However, the product sent by the complainant returned back to the complainant and remained undelivered to the seller and A to Z claim was not processed. It is one again reiterated here that Opposite Party No.1 merely provide an online market place and is not involved in the after sales service in relation to any of the product listed on its website. Opposite Party No.1 acted diligently and assisted the complainant in getting a resolution. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the answering Opposite Party  and the Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to redress the grievances of the complainant.      Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, hence Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 are proceeded against exparte vide order of this Forum.   

4.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.CW1/A in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2  to Ex.C11  and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Rahul Sundram Ex.Op1/1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/2 to Ex.OP1/4  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party No.1.

6.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

7.       The complainant has submitted his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated the facts as detailed in the complaint and argued that  he purchased Sony Play Station 3 12 GB from Opposite Party No.1 on 24.4.2016 which was sold by Opposite Party No. 2 for Rs.13,900/- vide order No.403-2083771.  The moment the complainant received the parcel containing the product on 6.5.2016, he was shocked to see no MRP, no manufacture stamp and no invoice inside the box and to add to his agony when the complainant turned on the product the controller (Wireless remote) was not working properly despite charging it fully. Feeling cheated and duped by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 the complainant filed return of the product on the website of Opposite Party No.1 receiving which Opposite Party No.1 sent an email to the complainant and Opposite Party No. 2 directing both to comply with the ret urn formalities, but the complainant was never heard by Opposite Party No. 2 as directed by Opposite Party No.1 as a result of which the complainant filed an Amazon a to z guarantee claim on the website of Opposite Party No.1 which was confirmed  by an email reply from Opposite Party No.1. The agonishing journey of the complainant started on 16.5.2016 when Opposite Party No.1 asked the complainant to send an invoice of the product alongwith a document of the service centre stating the product  is in the faulty condition as mentioned by the complainant in his emails. The complainant mentioned his concern over visiting the service centre which is almost 50 kilometers from the place where the complainant resides and moreover the seller never sent any invoice, so the service centre will not entertain any complaint without any invoice. On listening to the genuine problems of the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 advised Opposite Party No. 2 in an email dated 25.5.2016 to issue an invoice to the complainant. After receiving the invoice from Opposite Party No. 2, the complainant took a print out of the shipping lebel and sent the product back to Opposite Party No. 2 as advised via registered post on 28.5.2016 but to the shock of the complainant, Opposite Party No. 2 never claimed the parcel and sent it back. The complainant further wrote to Opposite Party No.1 regarding no receiving of the product by Opposite Party No. 2 upon which the Opposite Party No.1 asked for 5 business days to further review the case. Feeling duped the complainant also wrote an email to country head  of the amazon.in who replied promptly and assured a solution. The agonishing journey of the complainant as further aggravated when the complainant went to premises of Opposite Party No.3 and asked for the inspection of the product and to the utter surprise of the complainant he was told by 3d by 3 that the bill is not valid and the product has no warranty on it. The product is still lying with the complainant and despite repeated emails no claim has been given by Opposite Party No.1. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 and 2 are guilty of rendering deficient services to the complainant and have miserably failed in discharging their responsibility at the time of transaction.

8.       On the other hand, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 despite due service  nor rebutted the evidence produced by the complainant nor filed any affidavit in this respect. But however, Sh.Mohan Arora, Advocate appeared on  behalf of  Opposite Party No.1 argued that Opposite Party No.1 neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The sellers themselves  (nor Opposite Party No.1) are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. Opposite Party No.1 is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers, nor does Opposite Party No.1 intervene or influence any customers in any manner.  Opposite Party No.1 is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. The present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of this Forum and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed.  It is averred that  the complainant has placed an order for the product in question from the seller from the website of the Opposite Party No.1 on 24.4.2016. Though the website is managed and operated by Opposite Party No.1, but the transaction is between the seller and buyer which is governed by Conditions of Use enumerated on the website of the Opposite Party No.1. It is further argued  that  the complainant responded on 28.5.2016 that he has sent the item via India Post with the tracking number CPI158256838IN and the same was responded by the Buyer Guarantee Team on May 31, 2016. However, the product sent by the complainant returned back to the complainant and remained undelivered to the seller and A to Z claim was not processed. It is one again reiterated here that Opposite Party No.1 merely provide an online market place and is not involved in the after sales service in relation to any of the product listed on its website. Opposite Party No.1 acted diligently and assisted the complainant in getting a resolution. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the answering Opposite Party  and the Opposite Party No.1 is not liable to redress the grievances of the complainant.    

9.       Although the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 did file the written reply to the allegations made in the complaint despite providing sufficient opportunities to defend its case, and were proceeded against exparte, but however, there is no specific denial. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased Sony Play Station 3 12 GB from Opposite Party No.1 on 24.4.2016 which was sold by Opposite Party No. 2 for Rs.13,900/- vide order No.403-2083771. But the contention of the Opposite Party No.1 is that  tthough the website is managed and operated by Opposite Party No.1, but the transaction is between the seller and buyer which is governed by Conditions of Use enumerated on the website of the Opposite Party No.1. But by saying that they are not responsible for the selling of the product by Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, they can not backed out from its responsibility. But howver, the Opposite Parties No.2 and 3 did not appear despite due service which proves their intention.  The complainant proved all these averments through his affidavit Ex.CW1/A  and also proved on record copy of order confirmation Ex.C1, copy of e-mail regarding manufacturer warranty Ex.C2, copy of e-mail regarding returns Ex.C3, copy of A to Z guarantee Ex.C4, copyof e-mail to generate invoice Ex.C5, copy of confirmation to generate invoice Ex.C6, copy of postal receipt Ex.C7, copy of email to country head Ex.C10 and copy of retail invoice Ex.C11. The evidence produced on record  by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged  as none appeared on behalf of  Opposite Parties  No.2 and 3 to defend its case despite sufficient opportunities provided to them nor  dared to file an affidavit to rebut the case of the complainant.

10.     So, from the entire unrebutted evidence produced by the complainant on record, it stands fully proved on record that there is certainly deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of all the  Opposite Parties and in these circumstances,  we direct all the Opposite Parties  jointly and severally to  refund the price of Rs.13,900/- of the product in question to the complainant, within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. All the Opposite Parties  are also jointly and severally  directed to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation for causing him mental tension and harassment besides Rs.2000/- as costs of litigation. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 21.06.2017.