Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1261/2021

Avinav Chawla - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

21 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 1261

 Instituted on:   18.10.2021

                                                                        Decided on:     21.12.2023

 

Avinav Chawla son of Shri Rupinder Chawla, R/O # 71-72, Captain Karam Singh Nagar, Sangrur, Punjab.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Bangalore 560055 Karnataka India.

2.             Sunrabbit Marketing, Building No.5, BGR Warehousing Complex, Near Shiv Sagar Hotel, Village Vahuli, Bhiwandi, Thane, Maharashtra 421302.

             ….Opposite parties 

For the complainant:                   :In person.              

For the OP        No.1                  :Shri P.S.Rattan, Adv.

For the OP No.2                          : Exparte.

 

Quorum:   Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

                 Sarita Garg, Member  

                 Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

ORDER

SARITA GARG, MEMBER

1.             Complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs pleading that the complainant online purchased one Cello Blazing Blaze-600B 1600-watt induction cooktop for Rs.2599/- from Op number 1 which was sold by OP number 2 on 29.7.2021 vide order id 403-6972502-5966763  which was delivered by the OPs on 2.8.2021 to the complainant. In the present case, the grievance of complainant is that when he opened the box, he found another model/brand which was wrongly sent to the complainant by the OPs, as such the complainant initiated return of the same which was picked up by the agent of the OP on 3.8.2021, a confirmation of which was also received and it was stated that refund will be initiated as soon as it reaches us.  The case of the complainant is that refund was not sent despite sending of reminders to the OPs on 18.8.2021, 23.8.2021, 24.8.2021, 26.8.2021 and 2.9.2021.  Not sending of the refund to the complainant is said to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to pay/refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.2599/- along with interest and further to pay compensation on account of mental agony, tension and harassment and an amount of Rs.20,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the OP is a e-commerce market place user friendly and to provide necessary tools to the sellers to list necessary details of the products and to the buyers for searching and browsing through the said products.  On merits,  it is stated that the complainant has not bought any goods from the OP.  It is stated that the complainant has alleged that he had received some other model/brand induction cook top and hence created refund on return request, but after receipt of the complaint raised by the complainant, the OP inquired into the matter and found that the product returned by the complainant was a junk product due to which a refund cannot be issued to the complainant. It is stated that the OP has not rightly refunded the amount and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

3.             Record shows that OP number 2 did not appear despite service, as such OP number 2 was proceeded against exparte.

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued vehemently that the complainant  purchased one Cello Blazing Blaze-600B 1600-watt induction cook top for Rs.2599/- from Op number 1 which was sold by OP number 2 on 29.7.2021 vide order id 403-6972502-5966763  which was delivered by the OPs on 2.8.2021 to the complainant. Further the learned counsel for complainant has argued that when he opened the box, he found another model/brand which was wrongly sent to the complainant by the OPs, as such the complainant initiated return of the same which was picked up by the agent of the OP on 3.8.2021, a confirmation of which was also received and it was stated that refund will be initiated as soon as it reaches us.  The case of the complainant is that refund was not sent despite sending of reminders to the OPs on 18.8.2021, 23.8.2021, 24.8.2021, 26.8.2021 and 2.9.2021.  Not sending of the refund to the complainant is said to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Lastly the complainant has prayed that the complaint be allowed.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has contended vehemently that the refund to the complainant could not be initiated as the product returned by the complainant was a junk product, which was intimated to the complainant, as such any deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 is denied. It is also contended that the OP number 1 is only an e-commerce platform where the companies sell their products. It is contended that the refund has rightly been not processed being the returned product was junk product.

7.             After perusal of the record we find that the complainant had purchased the product in question by paying the amount of Rs.2599/- vide Ex.C-1. Ex.C-2 is the copy of message showing “Return picked up, we will notify you once a refund is initiated.”.   Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-5 are the copies of emails which is duly supported by the affidavit of the complainant. On the other hand, the stand of the OP number 1 is that the returned product was a junk one, as such refund could not be initiated.  There is nothing on record to show that the returned product was having junk as the OP number 1 has not produce the same on record nor even  a photograph of the same has been placed on record. There is no explanation from the side of OP number 1 that why it did not produced the junk product on record for perusal of this Commission. If it is assumed that it was a junk product, then why the agent of the OP number 1 accepted the same at the time of pick up (return) from the complainant.   We have also perused the affidavit Ex.OP1/2 of Ms Richa Bakshi but there is nothing mentioned therein  that why the representative of the OP accepted the product in junk condition.  In the circumstances, we find that the complainant has successfully proved his case by adducing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record.

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP  number 1 to refund  to the complainant an amount of Rs.2599/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e.18.10.2021 till realization. We also direct it to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.3,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.   This order be complied with by the opposite party number 1 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

9.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

10.   A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

 December 21, 2023.