Delhi

East Delhi

CC/848/2014

DR. SHIVRAM GOPAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAZON INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jul 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 848/14

Dr. Shivram Gopal Iyer

M-601, Dharma Apartment,

Patparganj, IP Extension Plot No.2

Delhi- 110092

                                                               ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Amazon India

Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor,

26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road,

Malleshwaram(W)

Bangalore-560055

 

2. Cart 2 India Online Retail Pvt. Ltd.

2^nd Floor, No. 12 Sanjeevappa Layout,

10^th E Cross,

Nagvarapalya, CV Raman Nagar, Ward 83,

Bangalore-560093

                   …Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 11.09.2014

Judgement Reserved on: 11.07.2019

Judgement Passed on: 25.07.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

 

           Jurisdiction of this Forum has been invoked by the complainant,                       Dr. Shivram Gopal Iyer against Amazon India, OP-1 and Cart 2 India Online Retail Pvt. Ltd., OP-2, with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in services.  

            Facts necessary for disposal of the present complaint are that the complainant had placed an order for Sennheiser CC510 single sided Monaural Head set with noise cancelling micro phone (hereinafter to be referred as           Product-I) for Rs. 10,649/-, with OP-1 on 10.08.2014(which seems to be a typographical error as per invoice it should be 13.08.2014), which was delivered on 21.08.2014.

It has been stated by the complainant that the product delivered could not be connected to the computer as another connecting wire, costing approx Rs. 8,000/- was required, which was not displayed in the technical details enumerated online and the photo of the product did not display the wire. The complainant immediately raised a return request on 23.08.2014, Initially OP-1 had accepted the cancellation request for “Product-I”, and thereafter upon acceptance of cancellation request, the complainant ordered another substitute product Sennheiser PC21-II single sided headset with micro phone (hereinafter to be referred as Product-II) for            Rs. 2,867/- on 24.08.2014 on “amazon.in” vide order no. 403-4436537-0620338.

Subsequently, the cancellation request for “Product-I” was declined by OPs, asking the complainant that he should contact the local technician and product would not be taken back. The complainant has further stated that the OP-1, by advertising “easy returns” has misled the complainant.

             Due to the conduct of the OPs, the complainant was constrained to cancel order for “Product-II” as well, which was also declined by OP. But till the filing of the complaint even “Product-II” had not been delivered to the complainant.  

            Feeling aggrieved the complainant has prayed for directions to OPs to accept return of “Product-I” and “Product-II”, the total costs of both being Rs. 13,516/- (Rs.10,649+ Rs. 2,867) and since there had been delay in procuring the equipment which had not only caused mental trauma as well as economic loss, for that compensation of Rs. 40,000.

            Invoice dated 13.08.2014 for “Product-I”, details for “Product-II” and various emails exchanged with OPs on different dates have been annexed with the complaint.

            Notice of the present complaint was served upon OPs.

Written Statement was filed by OP-1, where they have taken various objections such as they operate an online market place and act as a facilitator by providing an independent third party sellers, a platform to advertise and list their products and to connect with the prospective customers; no cause of action was there in favour of complainant and against OP. It was submitted that as per “condition of use” available on website it was specifically agreed by the complainant that the sale of products was a bipartite contract between the complainant and seller and the sellers were responsible for their respective listings, it was further submitted that in the present case there was clear cut deficiency on part of OP-2. Request for return for “Product-I” was admitted and the same was forwarded to OP-2 via email dated 24.08.2014 and thereafter OP-2 had contacted the complainant vide email dated 26.08.2014 keeping OP-1 in loop. They have also denied the rest of contents of the complaint.

   Reply was filed on behalf of OP-2, the seller where they have also taken several objections in their defence such as; the complainant was not a consumer as the products ordered were purchased for commercial use; OP-2 was only a seller and was not expected to know every detail of the product and it was the duty of the complainant to verify all the specifications before buying the product. It was submitted that OP-1 being the importer, had imported the items/ product from USA and China got them listed on all websites like amazon.in, flipkart.com, ebay.in with all specifications given by the manufacturers. Rest of the contents of the complaint has been denied.

            They have also annexed Authority Letter, emails exchanged with the complainant and OP-2 with their reply.

            In Rejoinder to the Written Statement filed by OP the complainant has reiterated the contents of his complaint and denied those of the reply.

            Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by complainant, where he has deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and has relied on the annexures annexed with his complaint.

Affidavit of Shri Rohitoz Singh, Authorized Representative of ASSPL (OP-1) was filed where he has reaffirmed the submissions made by them in their Written Statement and has got exhibited Authority Letter as OPW1/1A, copy of condition of use as OPW1/A, copy of email dated 24.08.2014, 25.08.2014, 26.08.2014, 08.09.2014 have been exhibited as OPW1/B - OPW1/F.

OP-2 have got examined Shri Saleem Habib, Director of Cart2online Retail Pvt. Ltd., who has also deposed on oath the contents of their reply.

We have heard the argument of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and Ld. Counsel for OP-2. The case of the complainant is that he had placed online orders with OP-1 i.e. Amazon and the product delivered was not compatible, therefore, the complainant initiated return request with return reason as “incompatible or not useful for intended purpose”. The said return request was thus forwarded to OP-2, cart2India, the seller.  The said return request was cancelled by OP-2 stating that the product was in good working condition and they would not be able to take the product back and requested the complainant to check with local technician for any technical help.

If we look at the mail dated 26.08.2014; OPW1/D where both OP-1 and    OP-2 have closed the return request of the complainant, it is clear that the product was eligible for return, once the product was eligible for return, which was eventually requested with the reason “incompatible or not useful for intended purpose” as the description of the product received was not there, the complainant was entitled to return.

OP-1 in their Written Statement have stated that the details were provided by OP-2, which were updated as the product description. Further in para-7 of their Written Statement they have stated that “in the present case, clearly the deficiency is on the part of the seller” and reading of the e.mail exchanged between the complainant, OP-1 and OP-2 shows that OP-1 had escalated the issue of the complainant with OP-2. Once, it was portrayed at the time of the sale that the product was eligible for return and declining to do the same on the ground that “the complainant should contact local technician” cannot be taken as a valid ground for cancellation of return request by OP-2. Further, as per “Amazon services business solutions agreement” filed by OP-1. Clause P-2 Product information of the same reflects the duty of accurate and complete information for each of the sponsored product had been casted upon OP-2.

Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, we direct OP-2 to refund the cost of the Product I i.e Rs.10,649/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of return request i.e. 23.08.2014 till realization. We further award compensation of Rs.7,500/- on account of mental agony and harassment.

As far as non delivery of Product II is concerned, the complainant had paid Rs.2,808/- (though in the complaint it has been mentioned that Rs.2,867/-), which was neither cancelled nor delivered. This amounts to deficiency in services on part of OP-1. Their plea that they are mere facilitators does not come to their aid as the order was placed online using their portal and further they have not taken any initiative to address the grievance of the complainant. Therefore, we direct them to refund Rs.2,808/- alongwith 9% interest from the date of order i.e. 24.082014 till realization.

The order be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

     

 (DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                         (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

          Member                                                                               Member    

                                            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                  President