Punjab

Sangrur

CC/373/2016

Kulwinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Shri Onkar Singh Mann

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                 

                                                Complaint No.  373

                                                Instituted on:    02.05.2016

                                                Decided on:       11.11.2016

 

Kulwinder Kaur W/o Jujhar Singh, resident of House No.25, Basant Vihar Colony, Sunam Road, Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1,Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W) Bangalore through its MD/GM.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri O.S.Mann, Advocate.

For OP                     :       Shri K.S.Sidhu, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Smt. Kulwinder Kaur, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant placed an order of  Moto G Turbo (white) mobile phone with the Op on 27.3.2016 vide order number 404-1239620-5473905, under the offer of the OP for the above said mobile phone i.e. there was a discount of Rs.7500/- on the cost of mobile set of Rs.12,499/- and a net amount payable was only Rs.4999/- by the customer for the mobile set in question. Further case of the complainant is that the complainant placed the order on the OP at Sangrur which was confirmed by the OP through email dated 27.3.2016 at 1.29 PM and further the amount of Rs.4999/- was paid by the complainant through debit card.  Further case of the complainant is that the complainant was surprised to receive a mail dated 27.3.2016 from the OP, vide which the order of the complainant was cancelled on technical error. Though the complainant approached the Op, but no satisfactory reply was given. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to deliver the mobile set as alleged above to the complainant at Rs.4999/- as per the order and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the OP neither sells nor offers to sell any products and the other allegations are denied.  It is further stated that the complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and abuse of process of law, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP as the complainant has not bought any goods from the OP nor the complainant paid any amount/consideration for the product and that it is not a consumer dispute.  Further it is stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant placed the order on 27.3.2016 on the website of the OP and that thereafter the said order was cancelled as the complainant had sourced the discount code from different websites/blogs/messages which was never issued or approved or authorised by the OP and the complainant was informed via email dated 28.3.2016 about the cancellation of the order. It is further stated that no  email as to the confirmation of delivery/shipping confirmation was communication to the complainant evidencing that the allegations levelled in the complaint are false and fabricated one.    It is further stated that the order was placed by the complainant but the same was cancelled due to reasons as mentioned above.  It is further stated that the complainant had redeemed an unauthorised promotional code/discount coupon amounting in Rs.7500/-, after application of which the total amount paid by the complainant for the said product was Rs.4999/- and after that the OP found that the promotional code was not genuine, as such the OP cancelled the order due to unauthorised coupon used by the complainant.   The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of order confirmation email, Ex.C-3 copy of refund success through email, Ex.C-4 copy of email. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP  has produced Ex.Op1 affidavit closed evidence.

 

4.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant placed an order of Moto G Turbo (white) mobile on the Op on 27.3.2016 vide order number 404-1239620-5473905 for Rs.4999/- and the original cost of the mobile set was Rs.12,499/- and the complainant placed an order on discount of Rs.7500/- on the mobile set, a copy of the order on record is Ex.C-2.  But, the grievance of the complainant is that the OP cancelled the order immediately on the same date on 27.03.2016 at 6.19 PM and refunded the amount to the complainant without any reason.   Now the complainant has claimed that the OP be directed to deliver the mobile set in question for Rs.4999/- only.  Whereas the stand of the Op in their written reply is that since the complainant placed the order by applying wrong code, the complainant has ordered for the said product from a third party seller over the website managed and operated by the OP, for which an amount of Rs.4999/- was paid by the complainant while the listed price showing on the website of OP was Rs.12,499/-, however, while placing the aforesaid order, the complainant redeemed a code/discount coupon amounting to Rs.7500/- after application of which, the total amount paid by the complainant for the aforesaid product was Rs.4999/- but due to the fact that the Op while processing the aforesaid order found that the said code was not genuine and was never issued or displayed by the OP on the website and was an unauthorised coupon/code, therefore, the Op cancelled the aforesaid order on the same day, without any further delay and refunded the whole amount to the complainant.  In the circumstances of the case, since the OP when found that the order has been placed by the complainant by using wrong/unauthorized code which was not genuine, the Op immediately cancelled the order and refunded the amount to the complainant.  In the circumstances, we feel that it is not the case of the complainant that the Op has kept the amount for a long time and did not even refund the same after cancellation of the order.  Further there is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not implead the supplier of the mobile set i.e. Cloudtail India Private Limited as a party in the present case.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that after placing the order on 27.3.2016, the OP immediately cancelled the order and refunded the amount of Rs.4999/- to the complainant. As such, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the Op at all.

 

5.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is therefore dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 11, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                          

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member