IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of June 2022
Filed on: 08.07.2021
PRESENT:
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Smt.Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C.No.224/2021
Complainant :
Sonet Saju, Vallikkattil House, Mangattoor, Kolenchery P.O., Ernakulam District, Pin-682 311
Vs.
Opposite parties :
Amazon India, Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Banglore-560 055, Rep. by its Authorized Officer, Chief Operating Officer.
(By Adv.P.M.Unni Namboodiri, Advocates & Solicitors, Ground Floor, 26A, Jangpura Road, New Delhi-110 014) )
O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
This complaint was filed by Sri.Sonet Saju stated that he had ordered a product namely ‘POCO M3’ for Rs.8,403/- through Amazon Shop. The complainant stated that the product has not been delivered to him as promised by the opposite party. As per the instruction from the opposite party, the complainant had paid the entire amount to the opposite party. The complainant alleged that information of order was understood by the opposite party and at the time of order an amount of Rs.25,209/- lost from the complainant since the mail and password sent by Amazon which was having no protection. Even though the complainant had approached the opposite party several times, they did not get relief from them.
2) Notice
Notice was issued from this Commission to the opposite party and the opposite party filed their version denying all the allegations framed against by the complainant.
3) Version of the Opposite Party
The Opposite Party (OP) submits that the Complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the Complainant has not fulfilled the requirements as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. In the version the Opposite Party denied all the allegation against them. The relevant part of the version is reproduced here below; “It is pertinent to note that the transaction so alleged by the Complainant carried out by and between the Complainant and the Impersonator, does not pertain to the e-commerce marketplace of the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that prima facie the alleged fraudulent transactions took place because of the Complainant's own negligence where he voluntarily shared the details of the payment and his account details on the basis of WhatsApp messages and later, himself transferred the amount of Rs. 8, 403/-, thrice into the bank account provided by the Impersonator. That ASSPL/Answering Respondent is an e-commerce marketplace that never contacts buyers through WhatsApp messages. Further, the alleged grievances of the Complainant in the present matter can only be answered by the Independent Third-Party Seller, Impersonator, and the Complainant's bank and not by the Opposite Party herein. Therefore, the Opposite Party cannot provide any information or confirm any of the transactions committed outside the e-commerce marketplace of the Opposite Party. That it is submitted that the present complaint pertains to fraudulent transactions, where the Complainant himself being grossly negligent and careless, of his own volition has transferred the amount into the bank account of the Impersonator. It is relevant to note that the Complainant has annexed his WhatsApp chats with the Impersonator, which are incomprehensible in nature. Hence, the complainant needs to be put to strict proof of the same. That the averments and allegations made under the present complaint are criminal in nature, hence cannot be adjudicated upon by the Hon'ble Commission. The Complainant has himself accepted the fact in the complaint that the Complainant transferred the amount of Rs. 8, 403/-, thrice into the bank account of the Impersonator thereby particularly indicating the negligence of the Complainant.” Further the Opposite party has contented that : “…..it is submitted that National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the case titled as HDFC Bank Limited & Ors. vs. Hemant Narayan Devande on 22.03.2017 has dealt with the issue of fraudulent transactions and the role played by the bank in such cases The Hon'ble Commission held that the bank is liable for deficiency in services and the fraudulent transaction. It is thus submitted that in the present case the Card Holder has incurred losses due to an apparent fraud for which only the Card Holder or the bank can be held liable. The fraudulent transaction has no nexus with ASSPL/ Answering Respondent. Thus, ASSPL/ Answering Respondent cannot be held liable to compensate the Complainant.That it is further submitted that the Opposite Party undertakes best practices to secure the personal information of the users of the e-commerce marketplace. The Opposite Party has ensured physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards in connection with the collection, storage, and disclosure of personal information (including sensitive personal information) of the users of the e-commerce marketplace. The privacy policy of the Opposite Party clearly highlights the measures in place to secure the information of the home users of the e-commerce marketplace and the importance of protecting the users against unauthorized access to the password and computer systems of the users of the e-commerce marketplace.”
The complainant had not appeared before the Commission for a long time after filing the complaint. Therefore, there is no means or way for the Commission for understanding the facts of the case of the complainant. The complainant failed to prove his case by appearing before the Commission and hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Commission on this the 30th day of June 2022
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDECE :: NIL
