Counsel for:

Complainant: Self

          For Op No.1: Shri P.K.Pattnaik. & Associates

For Op 2:- Sri.M.R.Mohanty,Advocate

For Op 3:- Ms.Richa, Authorised representative.

For Op.4;-Sri.S.Mishra. Advocate

ORDER

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. This consumer complaint is presented by the complainant named above alleging deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops for selling of defective goods/Mobil Handset through their e- commerce platform & for non refund of the price of said  defective product.
2. The complainant seeks for an order directing the Op to refund the price of the product i.e. Rs. 18,999/-with interest and, further pray for an award of compensation of 50,000/- towards suffering of mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost ..
3. The facts as stated in the complaint petition and emerged from the documents attached there with necessary for adjudication of this dispute are that :-The complainant  have   purchased a Mobile Hand set  i.e. One Plus Nord CE 2 Lite 5G (Blue Tide ,6GB RAM 128 GB Storage) Phone 5(Black 125 GB) B09WQYFLRX( ONEPLUS-NORD-CE-2-LITE-6G-128GB-BLUE-TIDE) from Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd/Op1 online vide Order  No.407-1953614-2381919 on  27.03.2023  for a sum of Rs. 18,999/-   who provide one year warranty. The billing address is Divyani Naik, Bhawanipatna,Kalahandi ,Odiasha,766001 .The product found  manufacturing defects  as it  did not work during the warranty period and now it has no use for which the complainant purchased another Mobil hand set .He sustained financial loss and mental agony on account of the said defective Mobil set  . His grievances made to the Ops responded. The Opposite parties are not rendering proper service and deficient in provide services indulged in unfair trade practice by not refunding the price of the defective Mobil set sold to the complainant online. The complainant   suffered financial loss and mental agony hence this complaint.
4. To substantiate her claim, the  complainant  has filed Tax invoice vide No.LK01-65118 dt.27/03/2023 towards purchase of subject Mobile Handset .The averment of the complainant petition is supported by an affidavit of the complainant.
5. On being notice, the Op 1 filed their written version denying the allegation of the complaint levying fault on the third party seller/OP2 of the alleged product. The OP 1 further submits that, the op2/Green Mobil is the independent third party seller registered in the e-commerce Market place who directly sold the Product to the complainant. ASSPL being an e-commerce marketplace and an intermediary only facilities such transactions between the purchaser and the sellers and that, complainant has erroneously impleaded Op1 & Op 3 as Opposite Party  .However, written version is presented by Ms.Richa for M/S Amazon seller Services Pvt. Ltd. representing the ASSPL/OP3 is filed in this case. It is stated that, the product purchased by the complainant was under one year manufacturer warranty for device and 6 month manufacturing warranty for in-box accessories including batteries from the date of purchase, provided by the manufacturer from the date of the purchase, and as such, they are the party liable to provide resolution for the defects in the product, if the complainant is found eligible for the same. ASSPL being an intermediary has merely delivered the product in a sealed packaged from the OP2 to the complainant and is not responsible for manufacturing defects in the product covered under manufacturing warranty. 
6. The Op 2 appeared through their learned counsel Sri.M.R.Mohanty but not filed their written version. The written version filed by the Op 1 is prepared by Ms.Richha and hence adopted by OP 3 & written version of OP4 beyond statutory period has not taken in to consideration .Op  4 did not choose to contest this case.
7. During hearing of this case the complainant has filed additional evidence on affidavit, averment of which is corroborating with the averment of the complainant. So also the Op1 representing ASSPL has filed the evidence affidavit of one Rahual Narayan, averment of which are corroborating with the averment of the written their version is taken in to consideration.
8. Heard. Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration to the respective submission of the parties.
9. Here in this case, it is not disputed that:-  complainant has purchased a Mobile Hand set  i.e. OnePlus Nord CE 2 Lite 5G (Blue Tide ,6GB RAM 128 GB Storage) Phone 5(Black 125 GB) B09WQYFLRX( ONEPLUS-NORD-CE-2-LITE-6G-128GB-BLUE-TIDE) from Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd/ ASSPL online vide Order  No.407-1953614-2381919 on  27.03.2023  for a sum of Rs. 18,999/-   online  and that, the OP/ ASSPL  has facilitated the transactions. It is also not disputed that, the OP is acted as intermediary through its web interface “www.amazon.com” and provides a medium of platform to various sellers all over India to offer for sale their products to the user of the AMAZON E-Commerce Platform.  
10. Nothing material placed there on the record to hold that, online market place service provided by the OP/ASSPL to the customer (here the complainant), by introducing third party seller for successful transaction, has been provided free of cost. As such, it may not be discarded that, the Op/ASSPL is the service provider rather squarely comes under the definition of service provider as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and that, the complainant is there consumer.
11. It may not be disputed that, the Op AMAZON /ASSPL  has introduced the 3^{rd p}arty seller in its e-commerce platform to the consumer /complainant and assured there for sell of good quality of product with  successful transaction as such, submission of Ops that;-there is no privity of contract between the complainant and Op is not acceptable and the submission of Op1/ASSPL that, the seller /Op 2 is solely responsible is not acceptable. Rather, the O.P/ASSPL being an electronics service provider comes under the definition of sec 2(17) of C.P Act 2019.
12. There is no dispute that, the O.P/ASSPL is providing e-commerce platform and introduced many sellers to the consumers/complainant knowingly enough the nature & credibility of the sellers. The O.P AMAZON /ASSPL is a repute company providing e-commerce platform and we are unable to belief that, the complainant could not have placed reliance only on the O.P AMAZON /ASSPL before placement of his order. As such, we are of the opinion that,  for any omission & commission of the third party sellers there through the e-commerce platform AMAZON /ASSPL so also for any defective product sold to the consumer/complainant  causing any injury to the complainant, the O.P AMAZON /ASSPL is personally & severally liable to compensate the complainant. However, the O.P AMAZON /ASSPL are at liberty to reimburse the cost & consequences of this complainant form the concern Third          Party Seller. Hence, submission of O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL that, complainant is bad for non-joinder & mis-joinder of party is not acceptable.
13. As per Rule 4(5) of the Consumer Protection (e-Commerce ) Rule 2020 ,the O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL being an e-commerce entity is duty bound to redress the complaint through a redressal mechanism within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint but here the O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL has appeared in this case and filed their  written version shifting  its liability to the Third Party Seller but no grievance officer has been appointed to settle the grievance of the complainant or have taken any step to settle the grievance of the complainant .Rather, lingering the complaint before this Commission which is also a clear negligence & deficient service there on the part of O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL towards the complainant.
14. The complainant has proved on affidavit that, he has purchased a Mobil hand set through the e-commerce platform of the O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL found defective within warranty period and the product is neither repaired nor replaced with new one so also, price of the product is not yet refund .This Commission is  of  the opinion that, the O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL are  duty bound to facilitate early refund of price of the product but failed clearly proved deficient service & the Unfair Trade Practice there on the part of the O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Commission is of the opinion that,, the O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL is indulged in Unfair Trade Practice & deficient in service towards the consumers/complainant which certainly caused financial loss, mental agony & harassment to the complainant cannot be denied as such the O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL are jointly liable to compensate the complainant. However, the O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL is at liberty to reimburse the cost & consequences of this complainant form the concern Third           Party Seller. The claim of the complainant is at higher side. Hence, this consumer Complain is allowed partly on with the following directions:.                                              
6698606.  

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances this consumer Complain is partly allowed against the O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL on contest with following direction:-

The O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL i.e OP1& 3 are hereby directed to refund Rs.18,999/- the cost price of subject Mobil Hand set with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filling this complaint till its actual payment and to p[ay compensation of Rs 5,000/-(five  thousand)  towards sufferings caused to  the complainant for their deficient service & Unfair Trade Practice, which includes the cost of this litigation , within 30  days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL i.e OP 1& 3 liable to pay Rs.100/-  per day as delayed compensation to the complainant till realization of the above said awarded amount.

The O.Ps /AMAZON /ASSPL i.e OP 1 & 3 is at liberty to reimburse the aforesaid awarded amount form the concern Third Party Seller and pickup the defective mobile handset form the complainant on his own cost.

        Dictated and corrected by me.

           Sd/-       

        President

                             I agree               

                                                               Sd/-   

                                                          Member

         Pronounced in open forum today on this 28^th day of   November  2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission. The pending application if any is also stands disposed off accordingly.

         Free copy of this order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download the same from the Confonet to treat the same as copy of the order receipt from this Commission. Order accordingly.