Date of Filing:04/05/2016
Date of Order:30/12/2017
ORDER
BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT
1. This is the complaint filed in person U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the O.P alleging deficiency in service and prays for orders to direct the O.P for the following reliefs:-
a) To pass an order to O.P to keep its promise and to refund/pay for a sum of Rs.2,85,284/- which has been received and against the return of the wrong product of the above order.
b) To refund amount, with 15% interest may be given from the date of placing the order from the O.P.
c) To pay Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony and for adopting unfair trade practice.
d) To pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost of proceedings and other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant on 25.9.2015 has placed an order for carrot lane 50 gram 24 Kt lakshmi gold coin (Qty-2) for an amount of Rs.2,85,284/- with order number 171-7238017-9209918 and the complainant received the order from Amazon transportation services courier on 2.10.2015. Further states that the complainant under the impression of seeing the packing that the inside content was carrot lane 50 gram 24 kt Lakshmi gold coin (Qty-2) but to the utter shock and utter displeasure that on opening the pack the complainant came to know that the gold coins are without any information of metal, purity and BIS certification which are completely different from what was shown in the website while placing the order and it is an utterly fraudulent act by the O.P. Further states that on 2.10.2015 the complainant informed the O.P about the wrong product received from the O.P and raised a written request to the O.P for refund of his money and on the same day the complainant received information from the O.P apologizing for sending the wrong product and acceptance of the complainant’s written request. Further states that the O.P on 4.10.2015 asked the complainant to return the wrong product back to them so that they could process full refund of the order and return the wrong product back to the address given by the O.P. Further on 20.10.2015 the complainant received information from the O.P stating that the wrong product reached them and they will process the refund within five working days. But after continuing follow-ups and escalations by the complainant if the O.P for about three months O.P finally initiated the refund on 24.12.2015 and apologized the complainant for the delay as it was a huge amount. Further O.P confirmed the refund in an email sent to the complainant on 24.12.2015 in which the O.P promised to refund the money and will be credited to the complainant’s bank account within 2 to 4 days but the complainant has not received the refund amount as promised by the O.P. Further complainant contacted the O.P regarding the delay in refund but there was no reply from the O.P. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, O.P entered appearance through his counsel and filed its version. In the version it is contended that, the complaint is an abuse of process of law and is not maintainable as a complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum by suppressing the material facts and averments made in the complaint are vague baseless and with mala-fide intention the complainant has misconceived and baseless allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service without any documentary evidence. Further contended that the complainant has only placed an order through the website, however has not purchased any goods from the O.P nor has the complainant paid any amount /consideration to the O.P and the goods have been purchased by the complainant from the third party luxury online retail India Pvt. Ltd. (Seller) selling its product on the website operated by the O.P. Further the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. Further contended that O.P has merely provided and online market place where independent third party sellers have listed their products for sale and the O.P is neither a necessary nor a proper party in the complaint. Further third party seller is a proper and necessary party for adjudication of the present complaint however the complainant negligently has arrayed the seller as a necessary party thus the present complaint is bad in law for non-joinder of necessary party. Further contended that complainant has explicitly by virtue of use of website has agreed to bound by the terms contained in the conditions of use. Further the O.P by denying all the other allegations of the complainant ultimately prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties have filed his affidavit evidence and we also heard the arguments.
5. On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration is:-
(A) Whether the complainant has proved
deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
(B) Whether the complainant is entitled to
the relief prayed for in the complaint?
(C) What order?
6. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT (A) : In the affirmative
POINT (B): In the partly affirmative.
POINT (C): As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
POINT No. (A) & (B):-
7. On perusing the pleadings of the rival parties and the evidence placed on record, it discloses that, it is not in dispute that the complainant on 25.9.2015 has placed an order with the O.P for carrot lane 50 gram 24 Kt Lakshmi gold coin (qty-2) for an amount of Rs.2,85,284/- with order number 171-7238017-9209918 and the complainant received the order from Amazon transportation services courier on 2.10.2015. It is also not in dispute as per the requirement of the complainant and his specification the above said product not delivered and hence the complainant intimated the same to the O.P and as per the O.P’s advise the complainant returned back the product to the O.P. Further it is not in dispute complainant also paid a sum of Rs.2,85,284/- in order to purchase the above said gold by availing the service of the O.P.
8. It is worth to note that, the O.P contention is that he is only a service provider and giving platform in order to do business with the customers and the third party, but the complainant did not make the third party seller as party to the proceedings and hence contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. Further contended that there is no deficiency in service from their part as the complainant did not purchase any other goods from the O.P.
In order to prove the case of the parties, and both parties filed their affidavit evidence along with documentary evidence. On perusal of the affidavit evidence of both the parties and both parties reiterated the facts averred in their pleadings. However, it is pertinent to note that, O.P is a renowned online service provider and by looking into the goodwill of the O.P company and various advertisements given in their website, the customers like complainant will be lured by such advertisement and get attracted and above all by believing that Amazon company as its goodwill the complainant by availing the service of the O.P placed the order. It is the duty of the O.P company to provide platform not to deceive the customers like complainant and there should be value for money in E-commerce. Further E-commerce is also is the order of the day because the service provider or the any commerce activities at the door step of the customers. The O.P also by taking their consideration amount through selling and purchasing of the goods to the customers like complainant, hence O.P’s business activities also come under the domain of the Consumer Protection Act. However it is an admitted fact contrary to the specification of the complainant through O.P platform the complainant received the product by paying an amount of Rs.2,85,284/- and hence same is send back to the O.P and complainant rightly demanded for refund of the amount. As per the evidence placed on record till today the complainant did not get the refund of the amount. Further on perusal of the order receipt dated 25.9.2015 it is evident that the complainant by paying an amount of Rs.2,85,284/- placed the order and the gold coin was dispatched on 29.9.2015 to the complainant. Further on perusal of written authorization label/declaration letter/to whosoever it may concern it is evident that complainant send back the package of article for refund of the amount are the replaced.
9. Further on perusal of the proof of delivery it is evident that the return product is confirmed by the O.P. On perusal of the letter dated 24.12.2015 it is evident that O.P undertakes to refund the amount of Rs.2,85,284/- and to give credit to his account within 24 to 48 hours. So also on perusal of other email communications and notices it clearly demonstrates that despite the returning of the gold coin and undertaking by the O.P, the O.P did not honour the legitimate claim of the complainant. It shows that doing E-commerce business is threatened to the hard earned money of the customers like complainant, the non-retuning the amount to the complainant it amounts to not only deficiency in service also it is unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P. It is the duty of the O.P to initiate with the proper action against the seller and O.P is also responsible. In our view and as per the evidence available on record we reached to conclusion that O.P is deficient in their service. Under the circumstances we hereby direct the O.P to refund an amount of Rs.2,85,284/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. Further just due to the non-action of the O.P in the matter and which made the complainant to wander from pillar to post and hence O.P is liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and it will meets the ends of justice. Accordingly, we answered the Point No.(A) in the Affirmative and Point No. (B) in the partly Affirmative.
POINT No. (C):
10. On the basis of answering the Points (A) and (B), in the result, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
- The complaint is allowed-in-part with cost.
- The O.P i.e. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., Represented by Vice President/Authorized Signatory hereby directed an amount of Rs. 2,85,284/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization.
- Further O.P is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
- The O.P is hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
- Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 30th Day of December 2017)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
*RAK
