Delhi

North East

CC/98/2022

Shri Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India - Opp.Party(s)

02 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 98/22

 

In the matter of:

	Sh. Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Dharamveer Singh, R/o H. No. B 138/A, Nehru Vihar, Near Govt. School, Tukmirpur, North East, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
1.                     2.	Amazon India Through its Director/MD/AR Registered Office at:- Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore 560055 Karnataka, India   Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. Through Its Director/MD/AR Registered Office at:- Khasra no. 444(P), 445(P),459(P),460,461,462,463,464,465,466,467,468,469,470,471, 472, 473, 474, 475(P), 476, 477, 478, 479,480, 481,482,483(P),491,492,493(P), Village Bhaukapur, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, 226401	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: DATE OF ORDER:

25.04.22 09.08.23 02.11.23

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant booked a room heater in his wife name though amazon id i.e.  from the website of Opposite Party No.1 for an amount of Rs. 10,099/- and the said product delivered to Complainant by Opposite Party No.2 on 22.12.21.Thereafter Complainant opened the product and turned it on and it gave electric shock to Complainant thereafter Complainant complaint about said product to customer care of Opposite Party No.1 requesting to return the said defective product. The Complainant stated that after placing return request on 22.12.21 the return pick up of product was scheduled on 23.12.21 but same was not executed by Opposite Party. The Complainant stated that he again placed the 2^nd return request of said product on 24.12.21 and the same was scheduled on 27.12.21, but again the same was not executed by Opposite Party. Thereafter, Complainant placed 3^rd return request on 27.12.21 and same scheduled on 29.12.21 but once again the same was not executed by Opposite Party.The Complainant stated that in this manner he has also placed 4^th return request which was also not executed by Opposite Party.  The Complainant had registered complaint toconsumerhelpline.gov.in vide complaint no. 3190705 on 30.12.21 and thereafter Complainant got threatening call from customer care of Opposite Party No.1 on 02.01.22.The Complainant sated that he again placed 5^threturn request of said product on 02.01.22 and same was scheduled on 03.01.22.On 03.01.22 Complainant received call from customer care of Opposite Party No.1 that said product was picked up by executive of Opposite Party No.1 but the product was not picked up. The Complainant informedcustomer care of Opposite Party No.1 then after half one hour the said product was picked up by 2 persons. The Complainant stated that on 05.01.22 Complainant receivedconfirmation mail from Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.1 assured to refund the money within 4-5 days and on 08.01.22 Complainant sent mail to Opposite Party No.1 for status of his refund but Complainant did not receive any information from Opposite Party No.1.The Complainant sent a reminder mail for refund of his money and then Complainant received reply from Opposite Party No.1 that product reached to Opposite Party No.2 and refund will be released within next 3 days. The Complainant stated that he had madeseveral call/chat communications with customer care of Opposite Party No.1 but they told Complainant that it is not under their hand and they cannot provide the refund. Thereafter, Complainant again registered complaint with consumerhelpline.gov.in vide complaint no. 3216668 but till date Complainant had not received satisfactory reply of his complaint nor received the said refund from Opposite Party No.1 and 2. The Complainant again sent mail on 19.01.22 to customer care of Opposite Party No.1 regarding refund but no reply was received by Complainant. The Complainant had sent legal notice to the Opposite Party No.1 and also  on the email id of Opposite Party No.1 on dated28.03.22 requesting the Opposite Party No.1 to refund the entire amount  of Rs. 10,099/- but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.The  Complainant has prayed for the cost of the product in question i.e. Rs. 10,099/- with interest from the date of purchase to the date of realisation. He has also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 to contest the case despite service of notice. Therefore, Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 12.07.22.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

3. Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated that the Complainant purchased havells OFR 11 Wave Fins Room Heater(Oil Filled Radiator)” on 19.12.21 vide order id 406-00302840816351 with an independent third party seller i.e. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd. That against the aforesaid order placed for the impugned product, an invoice dated 19.12.21, bearing LKO1-5859706 for an amount of Rs. 10,099/- was issued by seller duly indicating its Goods and Service Tax Number and the permanent Account Number against the said order. For added emphasis, it is reiterated that the tax invoice was issued by the seller/Opposite Party No.2 and not by the Opposite Party No.1 clearly indicating that the transaction of sale was executed by and between the Complainant and the seller/Opposite Party No.2.
4. It is submitted that the payment of consideration towards the impugned product was made by the Complainant to seller/Opposite Party No.2 in the nodal account set up in accordance withthe RBI Guidelines bearing no. RBI/2009-10/231 dated 24.11.2009. It is hence clarified that the payment made into the nodal account is not a payment made to the Opposite Party No.1.
5. It is submitted that as per the directions from the RBI, any transaction between a buyer and an independent third-party seller is executed through an independent nodal account maintained by the banks which is separate and from the internal accounts of the seller.
6. It is submitted that the Complainant in the present case alleged that he received a defective product on 22.12.21 as the impugned product gave electric shock to the Complainant, when turned on. It is further alleged by the Complainant that he contacted the Opposite Party No.1 on 22.12.21 complaining about the same. It is submitted that the impugned product was successfully delivered to the Complainant in an intact condition on 22.12.21, as it was received from the seller/Opposite Party No.2.
7. It is further submitted that Opposite Party No.1 proactively enquired the Complainant’s complaint and scheduled a pickup for the return/refund of the impugned product. It is pertinent to mention that the Complainant was cancelling the return pickup and rescheduling it, several times. Later, the impugned product was picked up by Opposite Party No.1 on 03.01.21.
8. It is submitted that when the impugned product was inspected, it came to knowledge of Opposite Party No.1 that the product returned by the Complainant was wrong product, not the product delivered by the Opposite Party No.1. Based on this finding, the refund against the return of the impugned product was denied to the Complainant, as the seller/Opposite Party No.2 never received the correct product. It is humbly submitted here that Opposite Party No.1 proactively enquired the matter, scheduled the return/refund of the impugned product and assisted the Complainant in resolving the complaint and there has been no deficiency of service on part of Opposite Party No.1. It noteworthy that the Complainant returned a wrong product and the impugned product was never received by the seller/Opposite Party No.2.
9. The Complainant should be put to strict proof that the product returned by the Complainant was the same product which was delivered to him and the return pickup was cancelled and rescheduled several times by Opposite Party No.1.
10. It is further submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 merely provides an e-commerce marketplace where the sale transaction in entered by and between the buyer and the independent third party seller. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.1 is responsible neither for replacing the impugned product nor for any financial loss or mental agony caused due to any act of Opposite Party No.2.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1

11. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 wherein the Complainant has denied the objection raised by the Opposite Party No.1 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

 

 

Evidence of the Complainant

12. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.1

13. In order to prove its case Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Ms. Richa Bakshi, Authorized Signatory of Opposite Party No.1, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.1 have been supported.

Arguments and Conclusion

14. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for theComplainant and Opposite Party No.1. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1.The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a room heater from the website of Opposite Party No.1 for an amount of Rs. 10,099/- and the said product delivered to him on 22.12.21 by Opposite Party No.2.  On receiving of the said product, Complainant opened the product and turned it on and it gave electric shock to the Complainant. Thereafter Complainant took up the matter with Opposite Party No.1 and request the Opposite Party No.1 to take back the said defective product. After taking up the matter with the Opposite Party No.1 on various occasions the said product was picked up by representative of Opposite Party No.1 and same was confirmed by the Opposite Party No.1 by way of confirmation mail. The Opposite Party No.1 assured him about refund of the amount paid by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1 within 4-5 days, the Complainant took up the matter time and again with Opposite Party No.1 for refund of amount paid by him for said defective product and Opposite Party failed to refund the amount paid by the Complainant. Hence this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties.
15.  The case of the Opposite Party No.1 is that the Complainant purchased the said product through their website with an independent third party seller i.e. Cloudtail India Pvt. Ltd who is Opposite Party No.2 in this case. It is further submitted that tax invoice was issued by the Opposite Party No.2 and not by the Opposite Party No.1 which clearly indicate that the transaction of sale was executed by and between the Complainant and the seller/ Opposite Party no.2 and payment of consideration towards the impugned product was made by the Complainant to the seller/ Opposite Party No.2 in the nodal account set up/ operatedby Opposite Party No.1.  It is also submitted by the Opposite Party No.1 after taken back the said product from the Complainant it came to knowledge of Opposite Party No.1 that the product returned by the Complainant was wrong product, not the product delivered by the Opposite Party No.1. Based on this finding, the refund against the return of the impugned product was denied to the Complainant, as the seller/Opposite Party No.2 never received the correct product.
16.  It is clear from the above that the product supplied by the Opposite Party No.1 was the defective one and the same was taken back by the representative of Opposite Party No.1. The contention of the Opposite Party No.1 regarding wrong product was returned and so refund was not made by them is without any substance.
17.  The Opposite Party No.1 did not produce any evidence regarding they have received wrong product. While taking of the delivery of the defective product it was duty of the Opposite Party to check the product before taking back the said product. In view of this, the contention of Opposite Party No.1 is not maintainable. In our considered view, there is deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. Therefore, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally the cost of product in question i.e. Rs. 10,099/- to Complainant with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party No.1and 2 are further directed to pay jointly and severally Rs. 25,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- for litigation expenses to the Complainant along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
18. Order announced on 02.11.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President