Date of Filing:16/05/2017

Date of Order:12/10/2018

BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE -  27.

Dated:12^th DAY OF OCTOBER 2018

PRESENT

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT

SRI D.SURESH, B.Com., LL.B., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1031/2017

Vs

ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT:

1.       This is the complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, praying this forum to order the opposite parties (herein after called OPs) to refund of amount of Rs.29,999/- and to pay Rs.40,000/- towards compensation.

2.  The brief facts of the complaint are: that the complainant booked an order to purchase 1+ 3T mobile phone with O.P No.1 on 5.1.2017 and received the same on 7.1.2017 he made payment of Rs.29,999/- POS 037024 Amazon Seller and the said amount was deducted from his SB Account No.20101415059. However the delivery person informed him that the amount has not been received. As he wanted the mobile set and has the delivery agent informed that they have not received the payment he tried to make the payment through his brother’s account 30951373115 and after several attempts, a sum of Rs.29,999/- was paid through POS 069510 Amazon Seller and thus for the said mobile, two time payment has been made and matter was raised with O.p.no.1 for refund of Rs.29,999/- paid for the second time. They took time and afterwards the same was complained to the Bank which asked him to wait for 30 days. Inspite of it, the same has not been paid.  Even the matter was brought to the notice of the O.P.No.1 and they have also not refunded the amount. As per their instructions, he waited for many days and inspite of it they have not refunded the amount. Hence the complaint.

3.  Upon the service of notice, OP No.1 appeared through their counsel filed its version contending that it is only provides platform on online market place were independent third party suggest the list of their products for sale.   They neither sell nor offer any products. The seller themselves are responsible for respective listing and their products on their website. This O.P is neither responsible for the product that are listed in the website nor does it interfering and influence any customer in any manner. It has not involved in sales transaction.  The condition relating to the customer using its website specifically agreed that the O.P is only a facilitator and cannot be a party to or control in any manner any sale transaction on its website. It has denied the each and every allegations made against it in the allegation.  It is contended that the complainant is not a consumer and it is not a service provider. Since it is only a service provider and as the complainant has booked an order for 1+ 3T mobile, it has supplied the mobile set and it cannot be held responsible for non-receipt of the funds. There is no cause of action against it and it has been unnecessarily and wrongly arrayed as party .No claim can be claimed against it.  It has denied the allegation that the customers service team AMAZON  has not provided any help. It has refunded back the complainant’s amount. It is admitted by the complainant himself and the same was also communicated to the complaint on his contact with customer service team. The refund has been made from nodal account managed by designated department as per RBI guidelines. The nodal account facilitate collection and deposit of funds from buyer to be credited to the sellers account/refunded back to the buyer as per the regulatory process for ecommerce transaction. There is no amount pending with them in respect of the complainant.  All the three transactions were reversed as provided by Ref.No. any issue regarding non-receipt of the refund is with the concerned bank and not with this O.P and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

4.     On 8.3.2018, O.P.No.2 was given permission to file version by imposing cost of Rs.1,000/- by allowing his application. It was made clear in the order that in case the cost is not paid, the I.A. seeking permission to file version is deemed to be rejected. On perusing the ordersheet, it becomes clear that this O.P has not paid the cost imposed and inview of the conditional order, even though it has filed its version the same is not taken into consideration. Though notice was served on O.p.No.3, it remained absent and hence placed exparte.

5.   In order to prove the case, complainant and O.p.No.1 examined themselves as PW1 and RW-1 by filing affidavit evidence. Heard the arguments. The following points arise for our consideration:-

                   (1)   Whether the complainant has proved the

      deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

(2)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

     the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT 1:        In the affirmative.

POINT 2:        Partly in the affirmative

                       for the following:

REASONS

POINT No.1:-

7.     The witness examined on behalf of the complainant  and O.P.No.1 have reiterated the contents of the complaintand version respectively.

8.     Besides filing the affidavit the complainant has produced two bank statements wherein a sum of Rs.29,900/- from his accounts and Rs.29,900/- from his brothers’ account has been credited to O.P.No.1 in order to purchase 1+ 3T mobile on 05.01.2017.  It is not in dispute that the complainant received the mobile set. It is his grievance that since the agent of O.P.No.1 informed him that the amount has not been received, he tried to send the same through his brother’s account and succeeded in it and later came to know that a sum of Rs.29,900/- has also been deducted from his account thereby making double payment.  It is his specific case that though  O.P.No.1 and 2 were requested repeatedly through emails and correspondences, and though they asked him to wait for the mandatory days for refund they did not refund the same.

9.     In the version and in the email O.P.No.1 has claimed that they have refunded the amount.  When the tennor of the version is taken into consideration along with the submission that their accounts branch has sent the amount, it is quite contrary.  If at all O.P.No.1 is only a service provider and a platform  to the purchasers and sellers through online , there was no necessity for O.P No.1 to  return /refund the said amount to the complainant.  Though they have claimd that they have returned the same, no documentary proof is furnished before this Forum to arrive at a conclusion that the O.P.No1 has refunded the amount of Rs.29,900/- received by a complainant for the second time. Hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by O.p.No.1 in retaining the same.. Hence we answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.

POINT NO.2:

10.   In view of the above, the complainant is entitle to get refund of Rs.29,900/- from O.P No.1 along with interest at 12% per annum from 5.7.2017 the day on which the said amount was credited to the account of O.PNo.1 which O.P.No.1 as  an ordinary prudent businessman ought to have refunded the amount immediately.  The act of the O.p.No.1 made the complainant to approach this forum by spending his time, money and energy and also put to physical and mental strain. Hence, we are of the opinion if a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses if order to be paid to the complainant by O.P.No.1, ends of justice will be met. Hence we answer Point No.2 Partly in the Affirmative and hence pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The Complaint is partly allowed with cost.

2. The O.P. No.1 i.e. Amazon represented by its Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.29,900/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 5.7.2017 the day on which the said amount was credited to the account of O.P.No.1 till realization of the full amount to the complainant.

4. Further O.P.No.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation expenses.

5.  Complaint against O.P.No.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed.

6. The OP.No.1 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.

7. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 12^thDay of OCTOBER 2018)

MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Doc.No.1: Copies of email correspondences .

Doc.No.2: Copy of sale receipt of HDFC Bank.

Doc.No.3: Copies of the complaint details in email correspondences.

Doc.No.4 & 5: Copies of the Bank Statement of Complainant.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1:Mr.Rahul Sundaram, Senior Corporate counsel/Authorized Representative of O.p.No.1

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Annexure: A: Copy of letter /authorization.

Annexure: B: Copy of conditions of usage.

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

*Rak