Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/135/2023

Baljeet - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

27 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 135 of 2023

                  Date of Institution             : 15.06.2023

                                                           Date of Decision               : 27.08.2024

 

Baljeet son of Sh. Satyawan Sharma R/o Vidya Nagar Bhiwani, Haryana, 127021.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

The authorized signatory Amazon India, having registered office at: 26/1, Bridge Gateway, 8^th Floor, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwar (West), Bengaluru Karnataka-560055.

 

….. Opposite Party.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 2019.

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Complainant in person.

                    Sh. Aditya Partap Singh, Adv. for OP.

 

ORDER

 

SHASHI KIRAN PANWAR, MEMBER.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased A Samsung Galaxy S 20 FE 5G mobile phone through OP on 23.09.2022 in Rs.28,174/-. It is stated that on 28.09.2022, complainant received his order but the product box was totally damaged and back of mobile phone was also damaged and after several efforts, return request was approved by OP in the presence of delivery boy. As per complainant, OP denied any fault on their part as the contained product was junk shipping box instead of the original. As per averments of complaint, there was legal notice and reply thereof between the parties but of no solution. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred by complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP thereby causing monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment to him. In the end, prayer has been made to direct the OP to refund Rs.28,174/- to the complainant. Further, to pay Rs.1.00 lac as compensation for harassment and causing deficiency in service. Also to pay Rs.30,000/- towards litigation expenses. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit, has also been sought. 

2.                 Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement mainly submitting that OP is merely an intermediary who operates an e-commerce marketplace where any independent third-party seller is free to list any product for sale and any buyer is free to choose and order any product.  Therefore, there is no influence or interference of OP in the said process of listing any buying of products. Further, in such purchase, all payments are made directly to the third party sellers by the buyers. It is stated that OP neither offers, advertise nor sells any product on its e-commerce marketplace.  It is submitted that on receiving a complaint, answering OP inquired and found that the product was delivered to the complainant as intact condition on 17.11.2022. It is denied that the damaged product was delivered to the complainant rather stated that the product as was received from seller was delivered to the complainant in an intact condition on 23.09.2022. It is stated that the delivery was secured with a One Time Password (OTP) and complainant after authenticated the package provided the OTP to the delivery person and accepted the delivery. The OP has submitted that return policy allows for the refund on successful return of the correct product before the expiry of the return window. Therefore, return could not be issued to complainant as he purposely returned wrong item to obtain undue monetary gains from OP. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3.                 In evidence of complainant, his affidavit Ex. CW1/A alongwith documents AnnexureC-1 to Annexure C-5 were tendered and closed the evidence.

4.                 Ld. counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Mr. Rahul Narayanan alongwith documents Ex.OPW-1 to Ex. OPW-6 and closed the evidence.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for OP and complainant appearing in person and have gone through the record. Written arguments filed on behalf of OP. We have gone through the contents of it as well as case law referred in it carefully.

6.                 At the outset, as per pleadings of OP company, it is very much clear that OP is involved direct or indirect in selling, supplying and advertising the products on e-platform. The grievance of complainant is that the ordered mobile phone so sent by OP, received him damaged when opened the box before the delivery boy and return request of complainant was accepted by OP company but not provided him a new phone. To resolve his grievance, complainant sent a legal notice (Annexure C-3) and replication to the reply of notice (Annexure C-5) but of no use. On the other side, OP refuted the submissions of the complainant.

7.                 After hearing both the sides and going through the entire material on record, it is observed that complainant vide tax invoice/bill of supply/cash memo (Annexure C-1) ordered for the mobile in question having cost of Rs.28,174/- but the product was not received him in an intact condition rather it was totally damaged which is corroborated with by affidavit of complainant and evidence produced on record by him. In view of the above, we are of considered opinion that the complainant has received the ordered product in damaged conditions but despite making return request by complainant it was not provided to him which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP causing monetary loss as well as mental and physical harassment to complainant.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and OP is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of passing of this order:-

(i)       To refund Rs.28,174/- (Rs…Twenty eight thousand one hundred seventy four) to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till actual realization.   If the mobile phone in question is in possession of complainant, it is to be returned to the OP.  

(ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) to the complainant as compensation for harassment.

(iii)     Also to pay a sum of Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five hundred) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OP shall be liable to pay simple interest @ 12% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. If this order is not complied with, then the complainant shall be entitled to the execution petition under section 71 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and in that eventuality, the opposite party may also be liable for prosecution under Section 72 of the said Act which envisages punishment of imprisonment, which may extend to three years or fine upto rupees one lac or with both.  Certified copies of this order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.                                

Announced.

Dated:27.08.2024