Haryana

Gurgaon

CC/4/2019

Ghanshyam Khandelwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Mar 2022

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL FORUM,      GURGAON-122001.

                                                                    Consumer Complaint No: 04 of 2019                                                                   Date of Institution: 03.01.2019                                                                            Date of Decision: 07.03.2022

Ghanshyam Khandelwal son of Laxmi Narayan Khandelwal, resident of 698/31, Gali No.4, Laxman Vihar, Phase-II, Gurugram, Pin Code:-122001 Haryana.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ……Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. M/s Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office Address: Amazon World Trade Center, Brigade Gateway, 8^th floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055 Karnataka.

Also At: 6^th floor, Ambience Tower-2, Ambience Island, Sector-24, Gurgaon-122002.

2.  M/s Joyalukkas India Pvt. Ltd.,4^th floor, N.98, M.G.Road, Bangaluru, near Anil Kumble Circle, Ashok Nagar, Bangalore, Karnataka, 560001.

 

                                                                         ....Opposite parties.                       

Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986

BEFORE:    SHRI SANJEEV JINDAL, PRESIDENT.

                    DR. RISHI DUTT KAUSHIK, MEMBER.

                    

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Shri Jappan Hora, Advocate for the OP No.1.

                   Shri Harish Saini, Advocate for OP No.2.

                  

ORDER       SANJEEV JINDAL, PRESIDENT.   

 

                   Briefly stated, the complainant has averred that on 13.12.2018, he ordered for 50 gram (999) yellow gold precious bar on an amazon market place site for saving/investment purpose and the amazon courier boy delivered the product on 28.12.2018 but to the surprise of the complainant, when he opened the packet, the same was found empty with only “gatte ka tukda” therein. So being very upset, the complainant immediately informed the amazon customer care for this lapse but the amazon customer care executives did not answer property and started saying that the product in question was not updated in amazon panel dated 28.12.2018, 29.12.2018, 30.12.2018, 31.12.2018 and 01.01.2019.  In the meanwhile, two other orders for refund were not processed by the Amazon despite the fact that the materials in respect thereof were already given to the amazon courier boy, the receipts regarding which were also intact with the complainant.  Even after the lapse of a period of one month, the refunds had not been processed which showed the irresponsible behavior on the part of OP No.1.  In the present case also, regarding the packet, its delivery was also very late and the amazon had already sent mobile message for delivery status on 25.12.2018, 27.12.2018 and then gave the date as 1^st Jan,2019 to 8th Jan,2019. Thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite party several times to refund his amount of Rs.1,72,556/- which was the price of gold precious bar but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint. In the end, the complainant prayed that a direction be given to the OP No.1 to give his gold precious bar refund amount of Rs.1,72,556/- alongwith compensation., and further, to pay compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and business losses as in the meanwhile he was doing very big business deals amounting to almost 30-40 lakhs and due to this incident, he was very upset at that time. Further, the complainant also prayed for Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges.

2.                Upon notices, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsels and filed their respective written statements. The OP No.1 filed written statement wherein it has been contended that the OP-1 was only an intermediary to the said transaction and the complainant did not fall under the definition of the 'Consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 qua the answering OP. The complainant had himself accepted that the product had been purchased from OP No.2 being the seller (as per para 1 and 5 of the complaint), who had also been made party to the present complaint. The order placed by the complainant upon the Seller was Merchant Fulfilled Network (MFN) order and in case of a MFN order, the products were sold and delivered by the respective third-party sellers and OP-1 had no role in such transaction.  Therefore, the contract of sale for the product was purely a contract between the complainant and the seller to the total exclusion of ASSPL. When the complainant contacted the OP-1 seeking its assistance by alleging that he had received empty packet from the Seller, the OP-1 provided the best possible assistance to the complainant. In this regard, the OP-1 investigated the issue with the Seller and received the information from the Seller that correct and complete merchandise was successfully delivered to the complainant at his registered address in an intact condition and accordingly, the refund/replacement was denied by the Seller.  Regarding, the allegations of the complainant for non-receipt of refund in respect of two other orders, the complainant had not mentioned any details in his complaint in respect of the said alleged transactions.  The complainant by way of filing the present complaint was just making frivolous averments.  As per the directions of Reserve Bank of India intermediary like OP-1 was required to open a Nodal account for settlement of claims of the Sellers and the buyers, and the transaction amount goes into the said Nodal account.  The complainant had not bought the product from OP-1 nor the complainant paid any amount/consideration to OP-1 and the same can be ascertained from the invoice attached by the complainant itself which shows that the said product was sold by Seller and OP-1 had no role in it.  All the other allegations were also denied by the answering OP as false and frivolous.  In the end, the dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

3.                      The OP No.2 filed its written statement wherein it has been

contended that the answering OP was the registered seller on the website of the OP No.1 and listed various products on the website.  The product in question was placed by the complainant Sh. Ghanshayam, for Joyalukkas Assayer certified 50 Gram 24K (999) Yellow Gold precious Gold Bar, vide order ID 407-5368238-5245159 ("Order") on the website.  After receiving the order information from the website, the product was packed in tampered proof highly secure packing under CCTV video recording and after packing the said package was dispatched via Courier services of M/S Amazon Transpiration Services Pvt. Ltd. Vide tracking ID: 522172703973 dated 20.12.2018.  The said package was successfully delivered to Sh. Ghanshyam at the address provided by him on 1^st

January,2019.  As per tracking information the package was successfully delivered to the complainant at his given address. The allegations of the complainant regarding the receiving of the empty box with piece of cardboard only therein i.e. "Gatte ka Tukda" required thorough investigation coupled with collection of evidence and cross examination of the witnesses, which cannot be decided in a summary procedure and as such the present complaint was beyond the jurisdiction of this Commission.  All other allegations were also denied as false and frivolous by the answering OP.  In the end, the dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.

3.                Both the parties have led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the parties.

5.                After considering all the facts and circumstances of this case, it emerges that the complainant had filed the present complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the allegations that he had ordered 50 gram (999) yellow gold precious bar on an amazon market place site but when he opened the packet, which was delivered by the OP No.1, the packet was found empty with only “gatte ka tukda” therein.  The OP No.1 has taken up the plea in his written statement that OP-1 was only an intermediary to the said transaction and that as the product was purchased from the OP No.2 being the seller, the OP No.1 had no role in such transaction.  The OP No.2 has taken up the plea that after receiving the order information from the website, the product was packed in a tampered proof highly secure packing under CCTV video recording and after packing the said package was dispatched via Courier services of M/S Amazon Transpiration Services Pvt. Ltd. Vide tracking ID: 522172703973 dated 20.12.2018.  It is the specific argument of the complainant that he had ordered the product through opposite party No.1 and not directly from the seller, so there is no merit in the contention of the OP No.1 i.e. Amazon that the seller-OP No.2 was responsible for the loss.

6.                The averments made in the complaint as well as the documents placed on the record of this file show the authenticity of the averments made by the complainant.  Further, in the light of the acceptance of OP No.1 & 2 in their respective replies that the complainant had ordered the product mentioned above on the website of OP No.1 which was duly packed by OP No.2 and delivered by the OP No.1-representatives, we are of the considered view that it was undoubtedly the burdened duty of the opposite party No.1 to deliver the ordered product in an intact and safe condition, i.e. the duty which the OP No.1 has miserably failed to perform.   Thus, the complainant undoubtedly becomes entitled to receive the refund of the product which was ordered by him but not received.  In these circumstances, we direct the OP No.1 to refund the gold precious bar amount of Rs.1,72,556/- to the complainant which he had ordered, within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the OP No.1 would be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of this complaint till the realization of the amount. Besides, the OP No.1 is also ordered to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation costs.  Ordered accordingly. The copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the records after due compliance.

 

 

Announced                                                           (Sanjeev Jindal)

07.03.2022                                                                President,

                                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                                   Redressal Commission, Gurgaon

 (Rishi Dutt Kaushik)

                    Member