Telangana

Khammam

CC/35/2016

Bojja Ramu, S/o. Koteswar Rao, Age 40 Years, Occu Employee, R/o. H.No.10-2-108, Beside Vishnu Clinic, Mamillagudem, Khammam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon India, Rep. by its In charge of Amazon India, Sri. Ameeth Agarwal, Regd. Office Brigade Gate - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Mittapalli Srinivasa Rao

21 Aug 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT KHAMMAM

 

Dated this, the 21^st day of August,2018.

 

          CORAM:     1. Sri. P. Madhav Raja, _{B.Sc., M.Li.Sc., LL.M.,}– President

2. Sri. R. Kiran Kumar_{, B.Sc., LL.M.} – Member

     

C.C. No. 35/2016

Between:

 

Bojja Ramu, S/o. Koteswar Rao,

Age: 40 Years, Occu: Employee,

R/o. H.No.10-2-108, Beside Vishnu Clinic,

Mamillagudem, Khammam Town,

Telangana State, India.

        …Complainant

And

         

1. M/s. Amazon India,

Rep. by its In charge of Amazon India,

Sri. Ameeth Agarwal,

Regd. Office Brigade Gate Way,

8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road,

Malleshwaram [W], Bangalore – 560 055.

Karnataka State, India.

 

2. Amazon Seller Services Pvt.Ltd.(ASSPL),

Rep.by its Authorized Signatory,

Regd.Office at Brigade Gateway,

8th Floor, 23/1, Dr.Raja Kumar Road,

Malleshwaram(W), Bangalore, Karnataka-560 055.

(Added as per order in IA No.73/2016, Dt:28-07-2017)       

…Opposite parties

 

This C.C. is coming on before us for final hearing in the presence of Sri.M.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Complainant; and of Sri Swarna Ram Babu, Advocate for Opposite Party No.1; Opposite Party No.2 served called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following order:-

 

O R D E R

(Per Sri. R. Kiran Kumar, Member)

 

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

 

1.      The averments made in the complaint are that the complainant placed an order on 06-05-2015 for purchase of Samsung Galaxy Tab 4 T231 Tablet (7-Inch, 8GB, WIFI, 3G, Voice calling)  Ebony Black with Opposite Party through online market vide Amezon in order No.4028704490-2770717 for an amount of Rs.14,980/- and the same was paid by complainant through his credit card account on 06-05-2015.  The complainant submitted that the above Tab was dispatched to the complainant through online seller on                     07-05-2015.  Thereafter the said Tab touch screen is not working properly, then the complainant approached the local authorized service centre i.e. M/s. S.V. Electronics, Khammam on 11-01-2016 for repair under warranty. On verification the said service centre informed to the complainant that the actual date of purchase was on 22-10-2014 and it was already repaired thrice i.e. 28-10-2014, 04-01-2015 and 23-01-2015 and also informed that the warranty period was already expired.  The complainant further submitted that immediately he approached the Opposite Party by sending a mail for replacement of the Tab, on that the Opposite Party informed to the complainant to submit a copy of service report from Samsung Service Centre, Khammam.  The complainant collected the service report from Samsung Service Centre and sent the same to the Opposite Party.  The complainant further submitted that the complainant contacted the Opposite Party so many times by sending mails, but the Opposite Party failed to rectify the problem, as such the complainant approached the Forum.

 

2.       On behalf of the complainant, the complainant filed the following documents and the same were marked as Exs.A-1 to A-12.

 

Ex.A.1         :- is the Bank statement of the Complainant dt:13-05-2015.

Ex.A.2:- is the selling details for order bearing No.402-8704490-

2770717, dt:07-05-2015

Ex.A.3         :- is the email copy sent by the complainant dt:11-01-2016.

Ex.A.4:- is the reply received from the Opposite Party, dt:24-01-2016.

Ex.A.5:- is the email sent by the complainant to the Opposite

Party dt:24-01-2016

Ex.A.6:- is the email received from the Opposite Party by the

complainant dt:05-02-2016.

Ex.A-7:- is the email received from the Opposite Party dt:06-02-2016.

Ex.A-8:- is the photocopy of letter addressed by the complainant to the

Samsung Authorized Service Centre, dt:10-02-2016.

Ex.A-9:- is the Warranty Claim Details of S.V. Electronics, Khammam  in

(3) in number.

Ex.A-10:- is the mail received from customer service dt:12-02-2016.

Ex.A-11:- is the reply message send by the complainant dt:12-02-2016.

Ex.A-12:- is the email sent by the complainant to Opposite Party,

dt:17-02-2016.

 

3.       On receipt of notice the Opposite Party No.1 appeared through their counsel and filed Counter.  In their Counter, the Opposite Party No.1 submitted that the complainant has impleaded M/s. Amazon India as Opposite Party whereas the entity operating the URL:WWW.amazon.in (Website) is Amazon Seller Services Pvt.Ltd.(ASSPL), also submitted that the complainant has filed the instant complaint without verifying facts and exercising reasonable  due to diligence and therefore wrongly impleaded the Opposite Party as a party to the complaint and therefore references to Opposite Party herein after should be construed as references to ASSPL. The Opposite Party further submitted that the Opposite Party is a well reputed company and has a very large customer base and amongst others, manages and operates the website and has its Registered Office at Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 21/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram [W], Bangalore, Karnataka State, India is represented by Authorized Signatory and took support their contention filed an Authorization letter and also a copy of board resolution dt:22-09-2014.  The   Opposite Party No.1 further submitted that ASSPL neither sells nor offers to sell any products and merely provides an online marketplace where independent 3rd party sellers can list their products for sale.  The sellers 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 3rd party sellers, nor does ASSPL Intervene or influence any customers in any manner.  ASSPL is not involved in the sale transaction between the customer and seller.  It is also submitted that the contract of sale of products on the website is strictly A bipartite contract between the customer and the seller and their conditions of use as available on the website.  The Opposite Party further submitted that the present complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of the process of the Forum and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed U/s.26 of Consumer Protection Act.

 

The Opposite Party further submitted that the complainant has not bought any goods from ASSPL, nor has the complainant paid any amount/consideration to ASSPL.  The goods have been bought by the complainant from the independent 3rd party seller selling its products on the website operated by the Opposite Party, accordingly the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer.  The Opposite Party further submitted that the Opposite Party has merely provided an online market place where independent third party sellers have listed their products for sale, the Opposite Party neither a necessary nor a proper party in the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed due to misjoinder of parties. The Opposite Party further submitted that the deficiency/defects in the present complaint cannot be attributed to ASSPL by any means whatsoever. The Opposite Party neither has the knowledge nor  the alleged defects in the product are due to manufacturing flaws or customer abuse, it is only manufacturer and seller and/or that can resolve any alleged defects with the products.  The Opposite Party further submitted that there is no occasion for the complainant to approach the Forum seeking redressal of grievance against the ASSPL.  ASSPL is not involved in the transaction between the complainant and seller. The complainant has explicitly by virtue of use of website, has agreed to be bound by the terms contained in the “Conditions of use”.  The Opposite Party further submitted that it is clearly deduced that the parties have vested exclusive jurisdiction to the court at Delhi and as per terms and conditions, the courts at Delhi shall alone have the jurisdiction to try this complaint.  Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The Opposite Party  further submitted that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean  hands and suppressed the material facts, just to misguide the Forum and it’s a settled legal preposition that “one who seeks justice must come to the Court with  clean hands”.  The Opposite Party further submitted that the complainant placed a Merchant Fulfilled Network(MFN) with order No.402-8704490-2770717  on    06-05-2015 for Samsung Galaxy T231 Tablet (“Product”) from the Website of Opposite Party. However the same order was fulfilled by a third party seller.  In case of MFN order the products are sold and delivered by the respective sellers themselves and the role of Opposite Party is limited to that of listing of the product on its website. the Opposite Party further submitted that the complainant contacted the Opposite Party on 24-01-2016 and allegedly complained that the invoice was dated April,2015 while the order he placed was in May,2015 and as such the product was allegedly refurbished.  The Opposite Party asked the complainant to send the copy of invoice, it is pertinent to mention here that the Opposite Party does not have the facility to ascertain whether the job sheets furnished by the complainant are genuine or not and it is only the seller, who is in the position to tell the authenticity of the job sheets specifically in the case in hand wherein the order is a MFN  order.  The Opposite Party further submitted that the genuineness and veracity of the alleged documents as furnished by the complainant can only be authenticated by the seller, but the seller has not been impleaded as a necessary party for dispute, more so the role of the Opposite Party is limited to that of facilitator, and the products available on the website of Opposite Party are sole/offered by third party sellers. Hence, the Opposite Party is not liable and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

 

4.      On behalf of Opposite Party No.1 the following documents were filed and marked as Ex.B-1 to B-3.

Ex.B-1:- is the certified true copy of Authorization letter.

Ex.B-2:- is the certified true copy of resolution, dt:05-11-2014.

Ex.B-3:- is the certified true copy of conditions of use of Amazon.

 

 

5.       Inspite of issuance of notice to the Opposite Party No.2, the Opposite Party No.2 called absent.

 

6.      The Opposite Party No.1 field I.A.No.73/2016 praying that the name of the Opposite Party may kindly be order to the struck from the title of the complaint and applicant i.e. ASSPL should be included in place of Opposite Party and the same was allowed partly by this Forum and the Petitioner/Opposite Party i.e. ASSPL is impleaded as Opposite Party No.2. 

 

7.       Upon perusing the material papers available on record, now the point that arose for consideration is

 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim?
2. To what relief?

 

 

 

Point No.1:

          In this case the complainant placed an order on 06-05-2015 for purchase of Samsung Tab through opposite party No.2. by paying an amount of Rs.14,980/-.  According to the complainant when the above tab touch screen is not working  properly, he approached the local authorized service centre on 11-01-2016 for repair under warranty, on verification the said service centre informed that the actual date of purchase was on 22-10-2014 and already the tab was repaired thrice i.e. on 28-10-2015, 04-01-2015 and 23-01-2015 and also informed that the Warranty period was already expired.  According to the complainant he immediately informed the opposite party No.2 by sending mails for replacement of the Tab, on that the opposite party No.2 informed to the complainant to submit a copy of service centre report.  The complainant collected the service report from the Samsung Service centre and sent the same to the opposite party No.2, even after receipt of service centre report by the opposite party No.2 the opposite parties failed to replace the Tab with new one, which is nothing but deficiency of service, as such the complainant approached the Forum for redressal.

 

From the documents and material available on record, we observed that the complainant purchased a new Tab from the opposite party No.2 and the same was given warranty.  As the touch screen of the Tab is not working, the complainant immediately approached the service centre for getting repair.  On the approach of the complainant the service centre informed to the complainant that the date of purchase was on 22-10-2014, which is against the date of purchase by the complainant on 06-05-2015 and also informed that the Tab was already repaired thrice.  And also the service centre authorities handed over Warranty Claim Details, which is marked as Exhibit      A-9.  Even after receipt of service centre report from the complainant, the opposite party No.2 failed to rectify the problem of the Tab and also failed to produce any evidence the disprove the contention of the complainant.  from the above we observed that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2 as such this point is answered accordingly, in favour of the complainant.

 

Point No.2:-

8.       In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite party No.2 to replace the Tab with new one or to refund the cost of the Tab i.e. Rs.14,980/- (Rupees Fourteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Eighty only)  to the complainant within one month from the date of order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @9% per annum and further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards damages and cost of the litigation.  The complaint against the opposite party No.1 is dismissed.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 21^st day of July, 2018).

                                       

                                                

                                                     Member                            President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,  Khammam.

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED:-

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties  

       None                                                                          None

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED:-

 

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite parties

 

	is the Bank statement of the Complainant,dt:13-05-2015.		is the certified true copy of Authorization letter.
	is the selling details for order bearing No.402-8704490-2770717,                 dt:07-05-2015		is the certified true copy of resolution,                       dt: 05-11-2014.
	is the email copy sent by the complainant            dt:11-01-2016.		is the certified true copy of conditions of use of Amazon.
	is the reply received from the Opposite Party,                 dt:24-01-2016.
	is the is the email sent by the complainant to the Opposite Party                   dt:24-01-2016
	is the email received from the Opposite Party by the complainant dt:05-02-2016.
	is the email received from the Opposite Party dt:06-02-2016.
	is the photocopy of letter addressed by the complainant to the Samsung Authorized Service Centre,                   dt:10-02-2016.
	is the Warranty Claim Details of S.V. Electronics, Khammam  in (3) in number.
	is the mail received from customer service                dt:12-02-2016.
	is the reply message send by the complainant           dt:12-02-2016.
	is the email sent by the complainant to Opposite Party, dt:17-02-2016.

   

 

 

                                                       Member                         President

                                                          District Consumer Forum,  Khammam.