Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 581.
Instituted on : 09.10.2017.
Decided on : 01.02.2022.
Asees Singh, aged 24 years son of Shri Raminder Singh, resident of House No.34, Sector-14, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. having its Regd. Office at Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram(W), Banglore-560055.
- Iron Store, Mahavir Nagar, Kota Rajasthan-324005 through its Authorized person/Managing Director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. SHYAM LAL, MEMBER
Present: Shri Kunal Juneja, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Sandeep Raj, Advocate for the opposite party no.1.
Opposite party no.2 given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that on dated 6.9.2017, the complainant had ordered one Samsung LED TV (78JS9500 198 cm (78 inches) Ultra HD Smart 3D) for Rs.50,000/- vide order no.406-9889210-9777123 and the aforesaid order was confirmed by the opposite party no.1, which was expected to be delivered on 16.9.2017. The complainant had debited Rs.50,100/- (including Rs.100/- as shipping charges) from his account no.30989856702 and same was credited in the account of opposite party no.1 on dated 6.9.2017. The opposite party no.1 again approached the complainant on 7.9.2017 and recommended the complainant to contact the Samsung Service Centre for installation of aforesaid ordered TV. On which, the complainant approached to the service centre of Samsung for installation of LED TV, which was ordered by him to the opposite party no.1. After placing the order of the LED TV, the complainant appointed an Architect & Interior Designer to design and to furnish an LED Panel in his drawing room and as such he has spend an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in all this activities. On 16.9.2017, the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 and asked about his order but the opposite party no.1 sought two days more time to supply the LED TV. The complainant received an email from the opposite party no.1 that the order has been canceled and the amount of Rs.50,100/- refunded back with the reasons that the “Shipping address is undeliverable”. The complainant kept on approaching the opposite party to deliver the product to the house of the complainant but of no use. The complainant also approached the opposite party vide email dated 18.9.2017 asking them not to refund the amount as the complainant was willing to pick up the product from the place of delivery. The act of cancelling the order without any justifiable reason is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to deliver the Samsung LED TV (78JS9500 198 cm (78 inches) Ultra HD Smart 3D), which was expected to be delivered on 16.9.2017 and also to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply has submitted that opposite party no.1 is the owner of an online market place website and provides an independent platform to various sellers to sell their products. Apart from the said arrangement, there is no other understanding or arrangement between opposite party no.1 and the sellers. It is further submitted that the information of a product being displayed on the Website of opposite party no.1 is listed by the seller and ASSPL has no role over their pricings and listings. It is further submitted that the opposite party no.1 does not sell or offer to sell any product and neither does it advertise or endorse any product or service on its Website or anywhere else and it merely provides an online marketplace where independent third party sellers list their products for sale. It is also submitted that when the complainant approached ASSPL, opposite party no.1 duly intimated the complainant that the product is undeliverable due to the courier issues and further told him that refund of the said amount i.e. Rs.50,100/- has been processed by the seller. It is also submitted that the complainant wrote a mail to the seller on September, 18, 2017 when the seller had already processed refund of Rs.50,100/- to the complainant and a confirmation email dated September 16, 2017 was sent by opposite party no.1 to the complainant. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. However, ld. Counsel for the complainant given up opposite party no.2, vide his separately recorded statement on dated 17.3.2021.
3. Ld. Counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and the evidence of complainant was closed by the order dated 21.01.2022 of this Commission. Ld. Counsel for the Opposite party no.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R1 and has closed his evidence on dated 3.11.2021.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case it is not disputed that complainant placed an order for LED TV with the opposite party No.1 on 06.09.2017 and as per documents Ex.P2 to Ex.P4 the same was shipped on the same day. As per the email dated 16.09.2017 at 3:25PM placed on record as Ex.P5, it is admitted by the opposite party No.1 that the item was not arrived as scheduled. As per email Ex.P6 dated 16.09.2017 at 5:31PM, opposite party has informed the complainant that the amount of Rs.50100/- has been credited to his account. As per Ex.P7 complainant has requested the opposite party that he do not want a refund and he will get the product at delivery point but despite his request to collect the product himself from the delivery point, opposite party No.1 has credited/returned the amount of Rs.50100/- in the account of complainant. The contention of the complainant is that due to non delivery of product, complainant suffered a huge mental agony and harassment and also suffered financial loss of Rs.100000/- as after placing the order of the LED TV, the he appointed an Architect & Interior Designer to design and to furnish an LED Panel in his drawing room.
6. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that firstly the item booked by the complainant was not delivered to the complainant within the prescribed time. Moreover the amount was refunded back to the complainant despite his request to pick up the product from the delivery point as the complainant has already spent an amount for fixing the LED panel as per its size, in his drawing room. But due to non delivery of the item he suffered the financial loss. However, complainant has not placed on record any bill to prove that how much money he has spent on the fixing of panel but the fact remains that he might have suffered the mental agony and harassment. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is liable to compensate the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay a compensation of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and shall also to pay Rs.4000/-(Rupees four thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the alleged awarded amount of Rs.10000/- from the date of filing the present complaint.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.02.2022.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
……………………………….
Shyam Lal, Member
