Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 342.
Instituted on : 16.07.2019.
Decided on : 14.07.2020.
Priyanka Nandal, House No.17, Sector-14, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, registered Office at Brigade Gateway, 8th floor, (W), Bangalore-560055, Karanatka, India, through its Manager/In-charge.
- Vardman Tele Marketing, Unit no.1, village Taoru, Tehsil Taoru Road, Mewat, Haryana-122105 through its Manager/In-charge.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
Ms. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Shri S.S Malik, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Harash Bhargav, Advocate for Opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 already exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 is online shopping company/website, respondent no.2 is seller under respondent no.1. On 12.5.2019, the complainant had placed an order of one Google Pixel 3XL mobile phone from respondent for Rs.59,859/- and the complainant had received the same vide Invoice No.DEL2-19399. The full and final payment of the said mobile set was made at the time of placing of order. The said mobile set is of one year warranty. The complainant opened the packing/box of the said mobile set, she found that the mobile set is of different colour as the complainant had ordered the mobile set of white colour. Therefore, the complainant had contacted with respondents no.1 and 2 through email dated 6.7.2019 and requested to replace the same and they replied the same and admitted their fault/mistake. The complainant also requested the respondents no.1 and 2 a number of times either to replace the mobile set with new one of white colour or to refund the cost of the mobile set but in vain and the respondents have now two days ago refused to pay any heed to the request of complainant. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of respondents. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the cost of mobile set amounting of Rs.59,859/- and to pay Rs.25,000/- on account of harassment as well as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that ASSPL has been wrongly impleaded as a party in the present proceedings as ASSPL neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The independent third party sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the e-commerce marketplace. ASSPL does not intervene or influence any user in any manner. ASSPL is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller. It is also submitted that ASSPL does not sell or offer to sell any products to the buyers and neither does ASSPL advertise or endorse any specific product or service on its Website or anywhere else. Further, the grievance of the complainant are limited to the alleged delivery of the incorrect product by the seller, which is neither manufactured nor sold by the answering OP still it has been wrongly arrayed as a party without any cause of action. It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Whereas, opposite party No. 2 failed to appear before the court despite due service, hence, opposite party No. 2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 3.9.2019.
4. Complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 11.12.2019. Opposite party No. 1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed his evidence on dated 29.01.2020.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per bill Ex.C1 complainant had placed an order for one Google Pixel 3XL (Clearly white, 4GB, 64 GB storage) mobile phone of Rs.59859/- on dated 12.05.2019 through opposite party no.1 i.e. Amazon.in. As per Invoice Ex.C2 dated 12.05.2019, the mobile in question was of white colour but when complainant opened the packing/box of the said mobile set, she found that the mobile set was of different colour i.e. of black colour whereas she had ordered for white colour. Complainant contacted the opposite parties on 19.05.2019 alleging receipt of incorrect product i.e. black colour mobile instead of white colour. Opposite party No.1 through email dated 06.07.2019 had also acknowledge the fact that upon checking the details they have found that the complainant has received the different colour mobile set and had also advised the complainant to forward the invoice details to the manufacturer. The contention of the complainant is that despite her repeated requests, her mobile set has not been replaced by the opposite parties. On the other hand, contention of the opposite party no.1 is that ASSPL/opposite party no.1 neither sells nor offers to sell any product and merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The independent third party sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the e-commerce marketplace. The complainant had purchased the product from the opposite party no.2, hence there is no liability of opposite party no.1.
We have observed that as per return policy Ex.R4 of the opposite party No.1, under the head mobiles, computers, it is submitted that: “The item is eligible for free replacement, within 10 days of delivery, in an unlikely event of damaged, defective or different/wrong item delivered to you”. In the present case also, different colour mobile set has been delivered to the complainant. But despite contacting the opposite party No.1 within 10 days, the mobile set has not been replaced by the opposite parties. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. Complainant has also placed on record copy of bill Ex.C5 and has stated that now he has purchased the another mobile set and has prayed for refund the price of mobile set.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.59,859/-(Rupees fifty nine thousand eight hundred fifty nine only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.16.07.2019 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the mobile in question to the opposite party No.1 at the time of payment.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
14.07.2020.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
………………………………
Tripti Pannu, Member
