BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

                                                          Complaint Case no. 705 of  2022     

                                                          Date of Institution:   13.12.2022

                                                          Date of Decision:     08.11.2024

Deepak Soni @ Deepak Verma (aged about 38 years) son of Sh. Chiman Lal, resident of Gali No.1, Parmarth Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa. Email:

                                                                                  ………Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Amazon India, Office Address: Second Floor, Safina Towers, Opposite JP Techno Park, No.3 Ali Asker Road, Bangalore- 560052 (Hyderabad) through Authorized Signatory.

2. Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd., Rect./ Killa Nos. 38//8/2 Min, 192//22/1, 196//2/1/1/, 37//15/1, 15/2 Adjacent to Starex School, Village Binola, National Highway-8, Tehsil Manesar, District Gurgaon, Haryana – 122413 (Seller of Product in question), through its Manager/ Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.

                             ……… Opposite parties.

          Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:       SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………. PRESIDENT

                   SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………….. MEMBER

                   SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA……………….MEMBER

Present:         Sh. Rakesh Gilhotra, Advocate for complainant.

Opposite party no.1 exparte vide order dated 05.11.2024.

Opposite party no.2 exparte vide order dated 07.02.2023.       

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( after amendment as under Section 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’).

2.                In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant while using online shopping app of op no.1 attracted with the Xiaomi mobile phone Model 11T Pro 5G Hyperphone (Meteorite Black having 8 GB Ram and 256 GB storage) placed an order to purchase that gadget through op no.1 on 23.11.2022 vide order No. 408-8430170-4661164 against the payment of Rs.36,999/- against six EMIs vide invoice No. DEL5-1627332 dated 24.11.2022. That thereafter one above said mobile was sent by op no.2 being the seller of the product under op no.1 through courier service and said mobile was received by complainant. It is further averred that complainant opened the said parcel and was surprised to see that box of said mobile was showing the storage capacity of mobile phone as 128 GB instead of 256 GB and he was shocked when he switched on the mobile and found its storage of only 128 GB instead of 256 GB. That complainant immediately sent a complaint to the ops through email to op no.1 on 30.11.2022 and screenshot of the order placed by complainant as well as photographs of the box of newly purchased mobile were also sent with the complaint that wrong product has been delivered to the complainant instead of actual order placed by the complainant, but neither any reply has been given by ops nor said problem was solved by the ops. It is further averred that apart from it, the complainant also made complaints to the ops on their toll free numbers but to no effect rather they misbehaved with the complainant and used rude and filthy language and the above said act and conduct of the ops clearly shows that ops have not only committed gross deficiency in service, unfair trade practice rather they have committed cheating and fraud with the complainant and have caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint. 

3.                On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that op no.1 merely provides an e-commerce marketplace where the sale transaction is entered by and between the buyer and the independent third party seller. The payment of consideration towards the impugned product was made by complainant to the Seller/ op no.2 in the nodal account set up in accordance with the RBI Guidelines bearing no. RBI/2009-10/231 dated 24.11.2009. The op no.1 operates the e-commerce marketplace i.e.

4.                Op no.2 refused to accept the notice and as none appeared on behalf of op no.2, therefore, op no.2 was proceeded against exparte.

5.                The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7.

6.                On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Rahul Narayanan authorized signatory as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex. OPW1/1 to Ex. OPW1/5.

7.                It is pertinent to mention here that on 05.11.2024 when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of op no.1 and as such op no.1 was also proceeded against exparte.

8.                We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the case file.

9.                From the invoice Ex.C2, it is evident that on 23.11.2022 complainant placed an order to op no.1 for supply of Xiaomi mobile phone with 8GB Ram 256 GB storage which was supplied to the complainant by op no.2 through op no.1 on 24.11.2022 against the price of Rs.36,999/-. However, when complainant opened the box he came to know that product ordered by complainant was not delivered to him and a wrong product was delivered to him as mobile was of 128 GB storage as is evident from the barcode which was attached with the backside of the box, the copy of which is placed on file as Ex.C3. So, it is proved on record that wrong product was delivered to the complainant than ordered by him but the grievances of the complainant has not been resolved by the ops despite his several requests and emails, the copies of which are also placed on file by complainant as Ex.C1 and Ex.C6. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of ops. Both the ops are responsible for the said unfair act as complainant placed an order for purchase of mobile in question to op no.1 and wrong mobile in question was delivered to the complainant by op no.2 through op no.1.

10.              In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the ops either to replace the mobile phone as per actual order placed by complainant after taking back the mobile delivered to the complainant or to make refund of the amount of Rs.36,999/- to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the said amount of Rs.36,999/- from ops alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment. We also direct both the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced:                              Member                Member                President,

Dated: 08.11.2024.                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                 Redressal Commission, Sirsa.