Order by:

Smt.Aparana Kundi, Member

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that the complainant had purchased a product i.e. Titan Analog Gold Dial Men’s Watch from Opposite Party No.2, through online platform of Opposite Party No.1 and paid Rs.13,795/-. The Opposite Party No.1 had sent the said product on the mailing address of complainant alongwith original bill. On receiving the parcel of said product from the delivery boy of Opposite Party No.1, the complainant had made videography while opening the sealed parcel. After receiving the said watch, when the husband of the complainant tried to bind the watch on his wrist then the wrist watch did not fit properly and it was little bit big in size. As such, the same was useless for the husband of the complainant. Thereafter the complainant filed a request for return the same with Opposite Party No.1 and said request was accepted by the Opposite Parties. On 07.03.2023, the said product was picked up by the agent of the Opposite Parties who at the time of picking up the product had checked out the returning product and satisfied with the same. After picked up the said product, the Opposite Party sent the message that refund will be initiated as soon as it reaches. After waiting about 4-5 days, when the refund amount did not credit into the account of the complainant, then the complainant filed her complaint on the online portal provided by Opposite Party No.1 who provide Grievance No.4394153 and Grievance Reg. Date as 09.03.2023, but despite that Opposite Parties did not return the amount of said product despite the fact that the said product had successfully been received back by Opposite Party No.2. The complainant tracked her complaint from time to time as per instruction of Opposite Party No.1, but finally on 01.05.2023 the complaint of the complainant was closed by Opposite Party No.1 without providing the refund of Rs.13,795/- with remarks “we find that the correct and complete product ordered by you was delivered you on 24 February, 2023 in intact condition. Accordingly neither replacement order nor refund can be initiated”. The complainant requested many times to make/refund the payment of product, but Opposite Parties refused to make the payment. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,795/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. till its realization.

b)      To pay the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.22,000/- as litigation expenses.

d)      And any other relief to which this Hon’ble Consumer Commission, Moga may deem fit be granted in the interest of justice.       

2.       Opposite party no.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complainant had placed an order for Titan Analog Gold Dial Men’s Watch on 18.02.2023 vide order ID:407-4606755-5941917 from an independent third party seller, i.e. VRP Telematics Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Seller/Opposite Party No.2) having its place of business at Building 2 (Wh 2), Plot No.12/P2 (IT Sector), Hitech Defence and Aerospace Park, Devanahalli Bengaluru, Karnataka-562149 IN on www.amazon.com. Against the purchase for the impugned produce, an invoice dated 18.02.2023 was issued for an amount of Rs.13,795/- was issued by Opposite Party No.2 duly indicating its Goods and Service Tax Number and Permanent Account Number. Further submitted that the tax invoice was issued by seller/Opposite Party No.2 and not by Opposite Party No.1 clearly indicating that the transaction of sale was executed by and between the complainant and Opposite Party No.2.  The payment of consideration towards the Product was made by the Complainant to the Seller/Opposite Party No.2 in the nodal account in the accordance with the RBI Guidelines bearing no. RBI/2009-10/231 dated 24.11.2009. This notification of the RBI contains directions mandating opening and operation of nodal accounts, not maintained  or operated by intermediaries, for facilitating collection of payments from customers on behalf of the seller/Opposite Party No.2. It is hence clarified that the payment made into the nodal account is not a payment made to the Opposite Party No.1 herein. Further averred that as per the directions from the RBI any transaction between a buyer an independent third-party seller is executed through an independent nodal account maintainable by the banks which is separate and free from the internal accounts of the seller. Further averred that on 03.03.2023 the complainant created a self-return request on the e-commerce marketplace of ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1. It is pertinent to mention that the first pick-up scheduled on 03.03.2023 was unsuccessful as the complainant was trying to return a wrong/incorrect product to the delivery agent due to which the in-app verification failed. Thereafter the complainant approached ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1 on 04.03.2023 requesting to create a refund on return and schedule another pick-up. After inquiring the complainant’s grievance, it came to knowledge of ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1 through the internal teams that a correct product, as received from the seller/Opposite Party No.2 was delivered to the complainant in an intact condition on 24.02.2023 at the address provided by the complainant. Further submitted that the complainant in the present dispute herself after authenticating that the package is correct and untampered provided OTP to the delivery agent and accepted the delivery of the impugned product. Despite the failure of the first pickup attempt on 03.03.2023, ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1 proactively acted upon receipt of complainant’s request. Thereafter, a refund on return was created by ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1 to provide the best possible assistance available to the complainant. Consequently, the impugned product was picked up from the complainant on 07.03.2023. However, on conducting a thorough inquiry it came to the knowledge of ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1 that the complainant has returned an incorrect/wrong product instead of the product originally delivered to her and therefore, refund against the return of the impugned product could not be processed and the complainant was duly intimated vide email dated 22.03.2023. It was the complainant who deliberately refrained from returning the correct product. The return policy allows for the refund on successful return of the product ordered originally before the expiry of the return window. Consequently, the refund could not be issued to the complainant as she purposely returned an incorrect/wrong item to obtain undue monetary gains. Further averred that the complainant is concealing the true facts of the case in order to mislead this Commission; the present complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties as the complainant has improperly an unnecessarily impleaded the ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1 to the present complaint; the complaint qua ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1is nothing but a mischief played by the complainant who is trying to create confusion by mixing up causes and liabilities between the seller/Opposite Party No.2 and the e-commerce marketplace operated by ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1. Further submitted that under no circumstances has ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1 committed any deficiency in service or adopted unfair trade practices. Further submitted that the ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1 merely provides an e-commerce marketplace where the sale transaction is entered by and between the buyer and independent third-party seller. These sale transactions by the user of the e-commerce marketplace of the ASSPL/Opposite Party No.1 are also governed by the ‘Conditions of Sale’. All other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Upon service of notice, none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, hence Opposite Party No.2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has placed on record her affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C12.

5.       To rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Rahul Narayanan, Senior Corporate Counsel alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1/1 to Ex.OP1/7.

6.       We have heard the complainant in person as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Party No.1 and gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf Opposite Party No.1 and also gone through the documents placed on record.

7.       We have considered the rival contentions of complainant as well as ld. Counsel for Opposite Party No.1. There is nothing on record that Opposite Party No.1 immediately on receipt of product back contacted the complainant informing that the same product was not returned which was delivered to the complainant. Email Ex.OP5 forwarded to the complainant simply reflected that Titan Analog Gold Dial Men’s Wrist Watch was received in junk shipping box, but nowhere it is mentioned that complainant has returned incorrect/wrong product. As per Opposite Party No.1 the product was supplied by Opposite Party No.2, but Opposite Party No.2 has not come forward to rebut the version of the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 has failed to produce any evidence to prove that complainant has returned incorrect/wrong product to Opposite Party No.2. It reflects malafide on the part of Opposite Party No.1/Amazon Retail India that upon service of notice of the present complaint, it presented a written reply taking a new plea that wrist watch returned was not the same which was delivered to the complainant. There is no apparent reason for the complainant to make a fake claim by filing the present complaint without returning the original product to Opposite Party No.1. The price of the wrist watch in question was Rs.13,795/- only, which is not such a hefty amount prompting any consumer to make any fake claim by returning any old and different product or even junk to the Opposite Party No.1/Amazon Retail India.

8.       There is also nothing on record to suggest that the product returned by the complainant was not tampered during the transit back. There is also nothing on record to suggest that any objection was raised by delivery boy at the time of picking-up/collection of wrist watch in question. At that time also no objection was raised that wrist watch sought to be returned was different from the wrist watch delivered. Thus, apparently fault lies with the company while picking up/collection of the wrist watch in question for the purpose of return from the complainant. From this we come to the conclusion that rejecting the refund to the complainant by Amazon Retail India without ensuring proper and fool proof mechanism for safe return of the product from the consumers amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1.  

9.       On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 did not opt to appear and failed to contest the proceedings.  In this way, the Opposite Party No.2 has impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. It also shows that Opposite Party No.2 has no defence to offer or defend the complaint.  

10.     From the discussion above, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant against Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and direct Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, jointly or severally, to make refund of Rs.13,795/- (Rupees Thirteen Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Five only) to complainant. Further Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are directed to pay compository costs of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, jointly or Severally, are further burdened with additional cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced on Open Commission