DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/06/2020

Date of Institution : 03.01.2020

Date of Decision : 14.12.2020

Nitin Bansal S/o Mehar Chand Bansal aged 30 years resident of Sadar Bazaar, Tapa Mandi District Barnala.    …Complainant

Versus

1. Amazon India through its Directors having its corporate office at Amazon World Trade Center-Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, India. email.cs-reply@ amazon.in.

2. Shakti Technology, Sellers Contact Shakti Technology, WH-10, Crystal Indus Logistics Park, Bhayla, Ahmedabad, Gujarat-382220 Mobile: 9904074777.

3. Onsite Electro Services Pvt. Ltd. Registered address at 702 Kushwah Chambers Makwana Road, Marol, Next to Cox and Kings Andheri, East Mumbai, Maharashtra-400059. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under The Consumer Protection Act 1986

Present: Sh. Vaneet Kumar counsel for complainant.

Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Opposite parties No. 2 and 3 exparte.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

(ORDER BY KULJIT SINGH PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Nitin Bansal filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (as amended up to date) against Amazon India, Bangalore and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant purchased the Aimex 22 Inch Petrol Chain Saw 62 cc from the opposite party No. 2 for worth Rs. 6,499/- on 14.5.2019 having warranty period of 6 months plus combo of OnsiteGo 1 year extended warranty from opposite party No. 3 for the Chainsaw of worth Rs. 499/- through opposite party No. 1 on 14.5.2019 and amount has been paid to the opposite party No. 1 in cash. 

3. It is further alleged that the father of the complainant is an agriculturist and aimex chainsaw shall be used for cutting of plants extra wood. Further, the Aimex 22 Inch Petrol Chain Saw 62 cc 2 Stroke Air Cooled was returned to the opposite party No. 1 as the part of chainsaw were missing for which the opposite party No. 1 refunded back the amount in the Amazon wallet.  

4. It is further alleged that complainant further ordered on 20.5.2019 Aimex 22 Inch Petrol Chain Saw 62 cc 2 Stroke Air Cooled from the opposite party No. 2 for worth Rs. 6,999/- which is the same product as earlier bought by the complainant but the amount of Rs. 500/- charged more than that of earlier amount paid. The said product was delivered on 25.5.2019 through opposite party No. 1 but the product of the opposite party No. 2 started troubling in starting of chainsaw and later stopped working on 4.10.2019. The complainant approached the customer care of opposite party No. 1 who denied any technical support and directed the complainant to approach the opposite party No. 2. The complainant contacted the opposite party No. 2 but no solution has been made. The opposite party No. 3 is also denying the claim of the complainant as the product sold was not covered under the category of the claim appliance. The opposite party No. 1 at the time of sale onsite warranty was sold with the combo of the Aimex 22 Inch Chainsaw with the assurance that the chainsaw was covered under the claim policy. The complainant requested the opposite parties to repair the fault of the machinery but to no effect which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to exchange the defected chainsaw or return the amount of Rs. 6,999/- from opposite party No. 1 and 2 and directed to opposite party No. 3 to refund the amount of Rs. 499/- paid at the instance of extended warranty of the chainsaw alongwith interest up to date at the rate of 12% per annum.   

2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and   harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

5. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written reply in which they submitted that on 14.5.2019 the complainant purchased one powerful 22 Petrol Chain Saw 62CC-Stroke Air Cooled (Red) for a sum of Rs. 6,499/-. The complainant also placed an order for an extended warranty on product i.e. OnsiteGo 1 year extended warranty for small appliances for a sum of Rs. 499/- on the same day from opposite party No. 3. Further, on receipt of product the complainant raised issues regarding accessories missing from the sealed package containing the product so delivered by the seller opposite party No. 2. So the opposite party refunded Rs. 6,499/- for costs of product and Rs. 499/- for extended warranty into the complainant's Amazon Pay Balance. Further, on 20.5.2019 the complainant placed order for Aimex 22 Inch Petrol Chain Saw 62 CC 2 Stroke Air Cooled (Red) for a sum of Rs. 6,999/- from the opposite party No. 2 but he did not purchase any extended warranty for this product. The product was delivered to the complainant in an intact sealed condition. The allegation of the complainant is that the product was defective and covered under warranty but complainant never approached the opposite party No. 2 or the answering opposite party in this regard. The complainant purchased the product on 20.5.2019 and started facing technical issues with the product on 4.10.2019 as admitted by the complainant himself in his complaint. The complainant therefore started facing the alleged issues after over four months of usage of the product. The complainant used the product for over 4 months without raising any concerns on the quality of the product. The complainant was satisfied with the product during the tenure of the return window and for a substantial period thereafter. The e-commerce marketplace has listing of over lacs of products listed by independent third party sellers so all warranties on each of the product are made exclusively and solely by such independent third party seller without any liability on the answering opposite party. The transaction of sale with regard to the product is between the complainant and opposite party No. 2 and consideration of Rs. 6,999/- was also paid by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2. The answering opposite party is neither the seller, manufacturer nor a service provider with respect to the complainant. 

6. The opposite party No. 1 also raised preliminary objections that complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer qua the answering opposite party as the complainant has not bought any goods from the answering opposite party nor has paid any consideration to the answering opposite party, rather the amount was paid to opposite party No. 2 so he is consumer of the opposite party No. 2. 

7. On merits, it is submitted that the opposite party is an online e-commerce marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale to the individual users to the total exclusion of answering opposite party. The complainant purchased the product from opposite party No. 2 and consideration also paid by the complainant to the opposite party No. 2. Further, the refund of the old product and extended warranty was also given by the opposite party No. 2. Further, the complainant did not order the same product on 20.5.2019. It is submitted that the extended warranty was applicable only on product purchased in the first transaction and not on the impugned product and extended warranty on the first product ceased to exist as the amount paid as consideration was refunded by the opposite party No. 2 to the complainant. Further, the complainant used the product over 4 months to his satisfaction. It is submitted that order of old product was cancelled and amount of the product and extended warranty thus purchased was refunded back to the complainant, so the product was not under extended warranty and complainant cannot claim warranty for impugned product through the extended warranty purchased earlier. The warranty on the product purchased in the first transaction was given by the opposite party No. 3 as combo was of product 1 and extended warranty. As the refund has already been made so the extended warranty was not applicable on the impugned product. There is no deficiency in providing service to the complainant. Lastly, they prayed for the dismissal of present complaint qua the answering opposite party. 

8. The opposite parties No. 2 and 3 did not appear before this Commission despite service through RC AD, so opposite parties No. 2 and 3 were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.2.2020. 

9. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence copies of bills Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3, copy of What's app Ex.C-4, copy of return memo and payment schedule Ex.C-5, affidavit of complainant  Ex.C-6, report of mechanic Ex.C-7, copy of cheque issued by Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. Dated 6.2.2020 Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence. 

10. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1  tendered in evidence affidavit of Rahul Sundram Ex.OP-1/1, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP-1/2, copy of resolution Ex.OP-1/3, copy of invoice dated 14.5.2019 Ex.OP-1/4 and Ex.OP-1/5, copy of invoice dated 20.5.2019  Ex.OP-1/6, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP-1/7, copy of conditions of sale Ex.OP-1/8, copy of letter dated 24.11.2019 Ex.OP-1/9, copy of payment for electronic transactions Ex.OP-1/10 and closed the evidence.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 

12. It is admitted fact between the parties that on 14.5.2019 complainant purchased Powerful 22 Petrol Chain Saw 62CC 2-Stroke Air Cooled from the opposite party No. 2 for a sum of Rs. 6,499/- vide invoice Ex.C-1. It is also admitted between the parties that the complainant on 14.5.2019 also purchased OnsiteGo 1 year extended warranty from opposite party No. 3 for Rs. 499/- vide invoice Ex.C-2. It is also admitted between the parties that the complainant returned the said product and received back the amount in the Amazon Wallet. So, in our view there is no dispute regarding the product purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties on 14.5.2019. 

13. It is also admitted fact between the parties that the complainant again on 20.5.2019 purchased Aimex 22 Inch Petrol Chain Saw 62 CC 2 Stroke Air Cooled (Red) from the opposite party No. 2 vide bill Ex.C-3.  Further, it is also admitted between the parties that the complainant facing issues with the product from 4.10.2019 after over 4 months of usage. But the complainant failed to prove on the file that he purchased any extended warranty of the product purchased on 20.5.2019. Further, the opposite party No. 1 specifically submitted in their version that the extended warranty purchased by the complainant only applicable for the product purchased by the complainant on 14.5.2019 and amount of the extended warranty to the tune of Rs. 499/- has already been refunded to the complainant. We also agree with this plea of the opposite parties that once the complainant returned the product and received the amount of the product alongwith amount of extended warranty from the opposite parties then he is not entitled for any extended warranty. In this way, firstly the product of the complainant purchased by him on 20.5.2019 is not under any extended warranty and he cannot claim any repair under the period of extended warranty. Secondly, we cannot understand that when the product of the opposite party No. 2 purchased by the complainant on 14.5.2019 was defective then it is intriguing why the complainant again ordered for almost similar product to the opposite party No. 2.  

14. Further the complainant submitted in his complaint that product of the opposite party No. 2 was started troubling in starting of chainsaw and stopped working from 4.10.2019. This fact also proved on the file that the complainant used this product smoothly for more than 4 months and there is no defect arisen in the product during this period.  To support his allegation that the product purchased by the complainant on 20.5.2019 stopped working the complainant tendered in evidence report of mechanic Ex.C-7 in which mechanic Pappu Singh son of Harnek Singh resident of Sekha District Barnala written that he is doing the work of mechanic in Hero Agency. He further reported that he checked the machine Aimex 22 Inch Petrol 62 CC-2 Stroke Air Cooler having red colour and after checking it was found that there is starting problems in the machine and plug of the same is also out of order. Further, there is leakage of oil from the four corners and carburetor of the same is also out of order. Further, the cutting belt of this product is also out of order and quality of the product is very poor. But in our view the complainant has not filed any affidavit of this mechanic to support his report. Further, this mechanic is working in an automobile agency and not a mechanic of Stoke Air Cooled. He also not written in his report that he has any knowledge of repairing a Stoke Air Cooled. He has also not filed any certificate vide which he can prove that he has taken some technical training from any authorized institute and also not written in his report that he is doing the work of mechanic for how many years. The most important point with regard to this report is that this report is prepared on 14.10.2020, whereas the complainant filed the present complaint on 3.1.2020, so there is no relevance of this report in the present case. In this way, in view of all these lapses we cannot consider the report of mechanic Ex.C-7 and except this report the complainant has not tendered any evidence to prove that there is any defect in the product in dispute. In this way, complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

15. In view of our above discussion there is no merit in the present complaint and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        14th Day of December 2020

 

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

            President

              

 

(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)

Member