BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 264 of 2021
Date of Institution: 11.10.2021
Date of Decision : 29.05.2023
Arun Kumar son of Shri Ashok Kumar, resident of House No. 906, Jandi Wali Gali, Khairpur, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwarm (W) Bangalore, Karnataka.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR…….PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………MEMBER
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh. B.S. Vinayak, Advocate for opposite party.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as Op).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that on 05.08.2021 he had placed two online orders to the op for purchase of One Plus Z Budds (Ear Phone) for the amount of Rs.2899/- and Bajaj Hair Oil but when on 07.08.2021 he received the parcel, he did not find ear phone in the parcel and only there was Bajaj Hair Oil and thereby op has caused deficiency in service towards the complainant. That due to act and conduct of the op, the complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections that an order was placed by the complainant for One Plus Buds Z (White) vide order ID 406-6051559-8473967 from an independent third party seller on the e-commerce market place operated by op no.1. The invoice was issued by the seller i.e. Appario Retail Private Ltd. That complainant has neither arrayed nor even mentioned the seller of the impugned product in his complaint and complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party and is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that payment of consideration towards the impugned product was made by complainant to seller of the product. That grievance of complainant arises solely against the seller of the impugned product. The op no.1 is merely an e-commerce marketplace, a third party wherein independent sellers themselves list, offer for sale and sell their products to the consumers across the country. On merits, it is submitted that op no.1 inquired as to the delivery of product and it was found that product had been delivered intact and was received by complainant intact. It is denied that the delivery box was not delivered intact. The complainant was informed by op no.1 that the delivery was successfully made and product was delivered intact to him. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant also filed replication to the written version submitting therein that ear phone has been removed from the parcel by the official of the op.
5. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents i.e. tax invoice/ bill of supply/ cash memo Ex. C1, cash memo of Bajaj Brahmi Amla Hair Oil Ex. C2, CD Ex.C3, photographs Ex.C4 and email Ex.C5.
6. On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Sh. G.S. Arjun Kumar Corporate Counsel as Ex. R1, authorization letter Ex.R2, cash memo Ex. R3, directions for opening and operation of accounts and settlement of payments for electronic payment transactions involving intermediaries Ex.R4 and conditions Ex.R5.
7. We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for op and have perused the case file carefully.
8. From the cash memo Ex.C1, it is evident that on 05.08.2021 complainant placed online order for purchase of One Plus Buds (ear phone) to the op for the amount of Rs.2899/- and besides the said order, complainant also placed order for delivery of Bajaj Brahmi Amla Hair Oil to the op for an amount of Rs.176/-. According to the complainant on 07.08.2021 when he received one parcel from op, there was only one product i.e. Hair Oil and ear phone were not found and were missing. The complainant also reported the matter to the op for redressal of his grievance but his grievance was not redressed by the op. The complainant has categorically stated that only Bajaj Hair Oil was received by him whereas ear phone was not received by him and it may be the act of the official of op. The complainant has also placed on file CD regarding conversation between complainant and Amazon Transport, Sirsa and photographs to prove the fact that parcel was over taped by official of the op after removing the ear phone. So, it is proved on record that complainant did not receive ear phone from op. The plea of op that seller of product has not been impleaded as a party has no substance because complainant has not alleged any manufacturing defect in the product rather it is a case of non receiving of a product from the op which was only liable to deliver the product in question to the complainant. So, complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs.2899/- i.e. price of the ear phone from the op.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to make refund of the amount of Rs.2899/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the amount of Rs.2899/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President,
Dated: 29.05.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
