Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/1003/2019

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon Salier Services Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

22 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	1003 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	03.10.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	22.11.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Vijay Kumar, 3^rd F. House No.5, Raipur Kalan, Chandigarh

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Unit No.1, Khewat/Khata No.373/400, Mustatil No.31, Village Taoru, Teshil Taoru, Distt. Mewat, on Bilaspur Taoru Road, Mewat, Haryana 122105

 

    ….. Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA       PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                MEMBER

                               

Argued by    : None for complainant

   Sh.Chetan Gupta, Adv. for OP

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

         The case of complainant precisely is that he purchased one mobile Phone – REDMI Y3 from OP on making payment of Rs.11,999/- (Ann.A).  It is stated that the said mobile phone  is not working properly from the very first day, as such, the complainant reported the matter to Customer Care on 30.8.2019 with request to either replace the mobile phone or refund its cost, but the same was refused by OP.  Hence, this complaint has been preferred.

 

2]       The OP has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant has purchased the said product from Seller who has not been impleaded as party to the complaint.  It is stated that the complainant never approached OP or its Customer Care as alleged.  It is stated that the complainant had purchased a mobile handset of the make and model Redmi Y3 for an amount of Rs.11,999/- on 16.8.2019 from M/s Darshita Aashiyana Pvt. Ltd., Mewat, Haryana 122105. It is pleaded that OP/ASSPL operates and manages the e-commerce marketplace at www.amazon.in wherein lakhs of third-party sellers and buyers interact and conduct their transactions. It is also pleaded that only role of ASSPL/OPs is to make e-commerce marketplace user friendly for the independent third-party sellers to list necessary details of the products and for the buyers for searching and browsing through the said product. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for OP and have perused the entire record.

 

5]       The complainant has filed this complaint with allegation that the mobile phone purchased by him from OP by paying an amount of Rs.11,999/- is not working properly and seeks refund of the said amount. 

 

6]       In order to substantiate his claim for the refund of amount showing any fault in the mobile phone in question in the form of any supporting evidence or any Service Centre Report stating it to be non-repairable, has not been appended on record by the complainant.  In the absence of any documentary evidence about the mobile phone suffering from any defect, no case of deficiency in service is made out against the OP. 

 

7]       In view of above findings, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Therefore, the complaint being without merit is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

        Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced

22^nd November, 2022                                                     sd/-

(PRITI  MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER