DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 166 of 5.5.2017

                                      Decided on:   26.2.2018

Ravinder Singh S/o S.Gurcharan Singh R/o # 1016 S.S.T.Nagar, Patiala-147001.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram(W) Bangalore-56—55, Karnataka.

2.       Canara Bank, through its Branch Manager, Patiala Main Branch, Plot No.2, Bank Sqaure, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala 147001.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

                                      Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member                

ARGUED BY:

                                      Sh. Ravinder Singh,  complainant in person.

                                      Sh. Amit Kumar Bedi, Advocate,

                                      counsel for opposite party No.1.

                                      Sh. Y. R. Mangla, Advocate,

                                      counsel for opposite party No.2.                                     

 ORDER

                                    SMT.NEELAM  GUPTA,  MEMBER

1. The complainant placed an online order for the purchase of a pair of shoes (Alberto Torresi Men’s Tan leather formal shoes—7UK of Rs.2865/-) from Op no.1 on 15.8.2016 vide order No.403-4470751-2242723 and the payment was to be made COD. During the payment time on 18.8.2016, the complainant made the payment through debit card. It is averred that when the complainant swapped the debit card, there was some error and the complainant had to swap the debit card for the second time. Due to this the cash was deducted twice from the account of the complainant (account No.108710019356, Canara bank).Thus double amount was paid. On 18.8.2016, back to back, the complainant received two messages from Op no.1 with mis matching dates (Ist showed date 1^st  showed dated 1.6.2016 and 2^nd showed the date 18.8.2016, stating that the amount was reversed and asked to contact the bank for the same. On 19.8.2016, the complainant checked his account electronically (mini statement from ATM) but found no record of such reversed amount. Further, when the complainant visited the bank personally, the bank officials checked his account and assured him that no such amount was paid back by Op no.1.The complainant sent e-mails to Op no.1 and also had telephone call with the representative of Op no.1. On 27.8.2016, the complainant returned the pair of shoes back because of their poor quality. On 30.8.2016, OP no.1 returned the amount of Rs.2856/- in his ‘State bank of Patiala’ account (account No.55146333843). Thereafter when the complainant asked the OP no.1 regarding the double charging, its representative told that there was no double charging and even if there was any double charging then the amount was automatically returned to the account from which the payment was made and also asked the complainant to contact his bank for further details. Then the complainant contacted OP no.2 who told the complainant to contact Op no.1.This way, the complainant again and again contacted Op no.1(almost 50 times).OP no.1 demanded one week’s time to check the details and after checking the same, sent an e-mail to the complainant on 9.12.2016 regarding one successful transaction. The complainant again visited OP no.2 and showed it the e-mail sent by OP no.1. OP no.2 told the complainant that it would contact its head office regarding the issue and also told the complainant that it would inform him after some days. The complainant contacted OP no.2 again and again but OP no.2 kept on lingering on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately showed its inability to do anything. As a result, the complainant underwent a lot of harassment at the hands of the OPs and ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act),1986.
2. On notice, OPs appeared through their respective counsels and filed their reply to the complaint. In the written version filed by OP no.1, it has submitted that it neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers can list their products for sale. The seller themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. ASSPL is neither responsible for the products that are listed on the website by various third party sellers nor does ASSPL intervene or influence any customers in any manner. The complainant has alleged that he made the payment for the product purchased by him through his debit card twice resulting into the deduction of the amount from his account bearing No.1087101019356 twice. The OP No.1 has submitted that the seller proceeds are received in the nodal account. It is pertinent to mention that the nodal account facilitates collection and deposit of funds from buyers to be credited to the seller’s account/refunded back to the buyers as per the regulatory process of e-commerce transactions. It is further submitted that the complainant had made payment through his debit card and only one amount was credited in the account of the seller through OP no.1 and the  complainant. It is further submitted that OP no.1 did not send any message dated 1.6.2016 and 18.8.2016 regarding the reversal of the amount as no dual payment was received by it. However, the complainant returned the product and a refund of INR.2856/-was processed into the account from the nodal account on 29^th August 2016.After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. Whereas OP no.2 in its reply has submitted that Op no.2 being a public sector bank, does not have any concern with the matters of payment made to Op no.1 by the complainant. It just acts as a facilitating agent between the complainant and OP no.1 to get their payments matured. It is further submitted that as and when the complainant visited the branch of OP no.2, complainant was very well attended to and immediately OP no.2 started coordinating with its card management section and every telephonic call of the complainant too was properly attended by the officials of OP no.2. After denying all other allegations made in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA his affidavit alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C13 and closed the evidence.
5. The ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB, affidavit of Sh. Rahul Sundaram, Sr.Corporate Counsel (Litigation) at Amazon/OP No.1 and closed the evidence.

The ld. counsel for OP no.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Smt.Tarika, Manager, Manager, Canara Bank and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the complainant, ld. counsels for OPs No.1&2 , and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
7. Ex.C1 is the invoice vide which the complainant purchased pair of shoes through on-line service of OP no.1 on 15.8.2016. Ex.C2 is the document showing the return of the product by the complainant and picking up of the item by OP no.1 on 29.8.2016. Ex.C4 is the bank statement of the account of the complainant showing the debit of the amount of Rs.2856/- twice on 18.8.2016. Ex.C6 shows the credit of the amount of Rs.2856/- once in the account of the complainant on 30.8.2016 by OP no.1.

Whereas the only plea taken by OP no.1 is that no dual payment was received by it and when the complainant returned the product, a refund of INR Rs.2856/- was processed into the account of the complainant from the nodal account as on 30.8.2016 and as such OP no.1 cannot be held liable for the refund of the amount which it had not received and it cannot be said to be deficient in providing service to the complainant and the complaint filed against it may be dismissed.

8. The ld. counsel for Op no.2 has admitted that the amount of Rs.2856/- was debited twice from the account of the complainant on 18.6.2016. But the amount of Rs.2856/- was credited only once in the account of the complainant on 30.6.2016. The said fact is evident from the account statement issued by OP no.2. OP No.1 has stated that the amount of Rs.2856/- received from the complainant on 18.6.2016 was refunded in his account on 30.8.2016 when the complainant returned the product. Now it is the duty of OP no.2 to prove that why the amount of Rs.2856/-, which was debited twice from the account of the complainant has not been credited into the account of the complainant twice.

9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we accept the complaint of the complainantagainst OP no.2 only. OP no.2 is hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs.2856/- in the account of the complainant alongwith a sum of Rs.3000/-as compensation for the harassment suffered by the complainant which is inclusive of litigation expenses. Order be complied by OP no.2 within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules.Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 26.2.2018               

                                                                   NEENA SANDHU

                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                   NEELAM GUPTA

                                                                         MEMBER