Haryana

Karnal

CC/722/2021

Sahil - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon Seller Service Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 722 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.28.12.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 27.02.2023

 

Sahil aged about 21 years son of Shri Vijay Kumar, resident of ward no.6, Buta Colony, village and Post Office Nissing, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal. Aadaar no.3061 9292 0181. Mobile no.87081 13000.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Amazon Seller Services Pv. Ltd. Aripl, Amazon Retail India Pvt. Ltd. Global Logistic Part, Kearn Rukmani Devi Public School, opposite Tau Devi Lal Park, Sector-7, Sonepat.

                                                                      …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

          

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    Shri Ashok Chawla, counsel for the OP.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that complainant saw a shoe on website of OP and the said show belongs to Red Tape company mode Red Tape Men Grey Walking Shoes B08R8VKW6Z HSN:64041190 of Rs.1749/-. The complainant placed the order of said shoes to the OP, vide order no.408-2580796-2463540, dated 28.11.2021 and paid Rs.1733/- from his bank account. On 03.12.2021, complainant received a parcel from the OP and when complainant opened the same, then he and his family members were shocked to see that the said parcel was empty as there are no shoes found in the said parcel. The complainant made a video clip in this regard. Immediately, complainant through email contacted the OP, and then the OP asked one week time from the complainant for making enquiry, but no fruitful result came out in this regard. Further, on 11.12.2021 complainant made an email and asked the status of the complaint, but OP paid no heed to the request of complainant and due to which complainant suffered a huge loss, mental, physical and financial. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP appeared and filed its written version stating therein that an order was placed by the complainant for Red Tape Grey Walking Shoes B08R8VKW6Z, vide order ID 408-2580796-2463540 from an independent third party seller on the e-commerce marketplace operated by the OP no.1. The impugned product was sold by the seller Cloudtail India Private Limited having its address at Panache Infradev LLP, plot no.B7, Ganesh Complex Rani Hati, Amta Road Mouza Subharara, Police Station Panchal Howrah, West Bengal-711322. It is further stated that the grievance of the complainant arises solely against the seller of the Impugned Products. OP no.1 is merely an e-commerce marketplace, wherein independent sellers themselves list, offer for sale and/or sell their products to the consumers across the country. Significantly, ASSPL, OP no.1 herein has no role to playing the manufacture, manufacturing warranty, selection, adoption, usage and dealing in Red Tape Grey Walking Shoes. Hence, OP no.1 neither a relevant party nor a proper party to the present complaint and the present complaint ought to be adjudicated between the complainant and the seller of the said impugned product. Complainant has neither arrayed nor even mentioned the seller of the impugned products in his complaint. Seller of the products is the correct and necessary party to the present proceedings. Thus, the present complaint filed by the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  It is further stated that the complainant purchased the impugned product from the seller of the said impugned product by paying the amount of Rs.1749/- to the Seller. Complainant purchased the impugned product directly from the seller and the amount stated in the complaint was paid to the seller of the impugned product. OP no.1 merely operates its marketplace where independent third party sellers and buyers interact. The sale transaction took place directly between the buyer and the seller and there is absolutely no involvement of OP no.1 at any stage of the transaction. There exists no privity of contract between the complainant and OP no.1 to the sale of the impugned product. It is further stated the package was delivered intact and with its contents intact. The product had been delivered to the complainant on 03.12.2021. The complainant was informed of the same on 03.12.2021. Complainant has not provided any proof whatsoever of the alleged communications that he purports to have sent to OP no.1 There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

4.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW/A, copy of bill/tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of statement of bank account Ex.C2, copy of driving licence Ex.C3, copy of email from OP to complainant Ex.C4, copy of complaint through email  by complainant before National Consumer Helpline dated 10.12.2021 Ex.C5, copy of email dated 11.12.2021 Ex.C6, copy of Aadhar card of complainant Ex.C7 and closed the evidence on 19.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

5.             On the other hand, learned counsel for OP has tendered into evidence affidavit of G.S.Arjun Kumar Ex.OP1/A, copy of authority letter Ex.OP1, copy of invoice Ex.OP2, copy of letter dated 24.11.2009 of RBI regarding directions for opening and operation of accounts and settlement of payments for electronic payment transactions involving intermediaries Ex.OP3, copy of conditions of use Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on 21.11.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

7.             Complainant while reiterating, the contents of complaint and has vehemently submitted that he purchased a Red Tape Men Grey Walking Shoes from the OP and paid Rs.1733/-. Complainant received a parcel from the OP and when he opened the same, it was empty as there were/are no shoes found in the said parcel. The complainant made complaint to OP through email contacted the OP but OP failed to redress the grievance of the complainant despite repeated requests and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

8.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that an order was placed by the complainant for Red Tape Grey Walking Shoes from an independent third party seller. The grievance of the complainant arises solely against the seller of the Impugned Products. OP no.1 is merely an e-commerce marketplace, wherein independent sellers themselves list, offer for sale and/or sell their products to the consumers across the country. OP no.1 neither a relevant party nor a proper party to the present complaint and the present complaint ought to be adjudicated between the complainant and the seller of the said impugned product. Complainant has neither arrayed the seller of the impugned products in his complaint. Seller of the products is the correct and necessary party to the present proceedings. Thus, the present complaint filed by the complainant is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

10.           Admittedly, the complainant purchased the shoes in question from the website of OP.

11.           As per the version of the complainant, when he opened the parcel, same was empty and there were no shoes in the said parcel. The onus to prove his case lies upon the complainant. During the course of arguments, complainant has shown the video clip which was taken in his mobile at the time of opening the sealed box. In the video clip nothing has been found in the sealed parcel and same was empty one. Complainant has made complaint immediately to the OP but OP failed to redressal the grievance of the complainant. Hence, it has been proved from the evidence produced by the complainant that sealed parcel was not having the shoes and OP has sent the empty parcel to the complainant on receipt of Rs.1733/-. Thus, the said act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.           Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP to refund Rs.1733/- as cost of the shoes in question to the complainant. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:27.02.2023

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       (Vineet Kaushik)             (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                     Member                          Member