Haryana

Karnal

CC/393/2023

Divyansh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

Hardik Khurana

03 Dec 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.393 of 2023

                                                        Date of instt 17.07.2023

                                                        Date of Decision: 03.12.2024

 

Divyansh son of Shri Nariender Kumar, age 23 years, resident of house no.570, Roop Colony, Sadar Bazar, Karnal 132001.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.  Amazon India through its Manager/Incharge, Amazon Development Centre India Pvt. Ltd. Ambience Tower, 6^th and 7^th floor, Ambience Corporate office Tower-II, Ambience Island, Sector-24, Gurugram, Haryana 122022.
2. Cocublu Retail Limited, 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, Gurugram, Haryana-122413.

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Hardik Khurana, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Akaash Chawla, counsel for the OP No.1.

                    OP no.2 exparte, vide order dated 17.11.2023.

                   

                     (Sarvjeet Kaur, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 18.05.2023, vide order no.402-0037947-0294704, the complainant had ordered one Black Pepe Jeans Men’s Straight Fit Jeans for a sum of Rs.1439/- online through Amazon App from the account of his relative Smt. Anjali.  The said jeans was being sold by OP no.2 on the online platform of OP no.1.  The said jeans was delivered to the complainant on 19.05.2023. After opening the package, the complainant found that the jeans was of Blue colour whereas he had ordered jeans of Black Colour and also that it was not of his size and did not fit him well. Therefore, as per the return policy of the OP, the complainant generated return request of the said jeans on the same day i.e. 19.05.2023 and that request was accepted by the OPs. On 20.05.2023, the return parcel of the aforesaid jeans was accepted and picked up from the house of the complainant by the Amazon courier/delivery executive namely Bittu after thoroughly checking the jeans. Thereafter, a message was received by the complainant that his refund will be issued within 3-5 business days from when they received the return. Complainant waited about ten days but OPs did not refund the amount. On 29.05.2023, complainant contacted the OPs on their customer care number to enquire about the refund amount of the aforesaid jeans but no satisfactory reply was given by the OPs. On 02.06.2023, the complainant contacted the OPs again. The complainant shocked to hear their reply. It was told to the complainant that he has sent back junk product i.e. stone and soap and therefore his refund will not be processed and he will not get his money back. The said allegation of OPs is totally false and frivolous. The delivery boy of the OPs had accepted the return parcel of jeans only after thoroughly examining it and after satisfying regarding the condition of the jeans. The OPs cheated the complainant by raising a false claim that the complainant had sent stones and soap only to grab the money of the complainant. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs several times for refund of the cost of the jeans but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and flatly refused to refund the cost of the jeans. Due to this act and conduct of OPs, complainant has suffered mental pain, agony and harassment. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP merely provides an e-commerce marketplace where the sale transaction is entered by an and between the buyer and the independent third-party seller. These sale transactions by the user of the e-commerce marketplace of the ASSPL/OP is also governed by the ‘Condition of Sale’ which reiterates that the contract of sale is bipartite between a buyer and the seller. In the present case, complainant placed an order for “Pepe Jeans Men’s Straight Fit Jeans” on 18.05.2023, vide order ID no.402-0037947-0294704 from an independent third-party seller i.e. Cocoblu Retail Limited (OP no.2). OP no.1 delivered the product to the complainant as it was received from the OP no.2, in an intact condition. Upon receipt of request of complainant with regard to return the product in question, the product was picked up from the complainant on 20.05.2023. However, on conducting a thorough enquiry, it came to the knowledge of ASSPL/OP no.1 that the complainant has returned an incorrect/wrong product instead of the product originally delivered to him and therefore, refund against the return of the impugned product could not be processed. It was duly intimated to the complainant, vide email dated 29.05.2023 that he has returned an incorrect/wrong product instead of the correct product delivered to him. OP no.1 duly asked the complainant to return the correct product but complainant failed to return the same. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.2 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 17.11.2023 of the Commission.

4.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill/invoice dated 18.05.2023 Ex.C1, copy of screenshot of Return Status Ex.C2, copy of certificate of under section 65 B Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 30.05.2024 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rahul Narayanan Ex.OP1/A, Board Resolution Ex.OP1/1, copy of tax invoice Ex.OP1/2, screenshot of message regarding delivering status of the product Ex.OP1/3, copy of email dated 29.05.2023 Ex.OP1/4, copy of the return policy Ex.OP1/5, copy of condition of use and sale Ex.OP1/6 and closed the evidence on 08.08.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint has vehemently argued that on 18.05.2023, complainant  purchased (online) one Black Pepe Jeans from the OPs, for the consideration of Rs.1439/-. The jeans was delivered to the complainant on 19.05.2023 but when complainant opened the package, he was found that the jeans was of Blue Colour whereas he had ordered jeans of Black Colour and it was not of his size so that complainant applied for return of product and refund of amount, under return policy of the OPs. OPs received the product under return policy but till today not refunded the cost of the product and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the complainant has returned the wrong product instead of the correct product delivered to him. OP no.1 asked the complainant to return the correct product but complainant failed to return the same. So, the request of complainant for return the price of the product could not be processed and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, on 18.05.2023, complainant placed an order to purchase the jeans from the OPs, for the consideration of Rs.1439/-. It is also admitted that complainant placed the return request to the OP.

11.           OP no.1 has alleged that complainant has returned the wrong product instead of correct product. The onus to prove its case was relied upon the OP but OP has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. Rather, complainant has alleged that the delivery boy of the OP pickup the product after verifying the same. To prove his case, complainant has relied upon the copy of bill/invoice dated 18.05.2023 Ex.C1, copy of screenshot of Return Status Ex.C2, copy of certificate of under section 65 B Ex.C3. When the product was returned by the complainant, it was the duty of the OPs to refund the amount but OPs have not refunded the cost of the products.       Furthermore, the evidence produced by the complainant is not rebutted by the OP no.2 as OP no.2 was proceeded against exparte. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, the act of OPs for not refunding the price of the product amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

12.           The complainant purchased the product for an amount of Rs.1439/-, hence, the complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount alongwith compensation for mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses, etc.

13.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.1439/- (Rs. fourteen hundred thirty nine only) to the complainant.  We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainants on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses.  Both the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the abovesaid amount. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated: 03.12.2024

                                                               

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Neeru Agarwal)         (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                   Member                          Member