Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/113/2023

VAIBHAV SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

MANVEEN NARANG

20 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/113/2023
Date of Institution	:	28/2/2023
Date of Decision	:	20/03/2024

 

Vaibhav Sharma, aged about 36 years, s/o Sh. Suvineet SharmaLawyers' Chamber No. 2, Punjab & Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

...Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited Through its Director 8th Floor, Brigade Gateway 26/1, Dr. Rajkumar Road Malleshwaram(W), Bangalore, Karnataka, PIN: 560055

 

2. HaPpY CART, Amazon Seller - A28V9ODN1CMECW Through Amazon Seller Services Private Limited, Through its Director, 26/1, 10th Floor, Brigade World Trade Center, Dr. Rajkumar Road, Bangalore-560055

  … Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :

SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA

Presiding MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Complainant in person
		Sh. Chetan Gupta, Advocate for OP No.1
		OP No.2  exparte.

Per surjeet kaur, presiding Member

     Briefly stated the complainant placed an order of a TV on the OPs’s website which offered  the TV at a discounted price of Rs.1,17,999/- as against the MRP of Rs.3,79,990.  The complainant paid the full amount of Rs.1,17,999/- through credit card and received confirmation mail from the  OP No.1 and assigned delivery date as 28-30, 2021. However to the utter shock of the complainant on the same day he received an email from the OP No.1 on the same day informing the complainant that the order has been cancelled and refund has been initiated without any consent of the complainant.  It is alleged that vide Annexure C-5 the refund of the paid amount was confirmed however the complainant felt cheated as the OPs have cancelled the order arbitrary and without any consent of the complainant. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply stated that immediately after placing the order, the said order was cancelled due to some error. It is pertinent to note that immediately after cancellation of the order, a full refund of Rs. 1,17,999/- was duly initiated and was infact refunded to the credit card of the Complainant on 22.01.2021 itself. That it is paramount to mention that the Complainant has never approached the Customer Service team of answering OP via any medium of communication such as call or email While, it is stated that the product being purchased by the Complainant from the Seller, was cancelled due to some errors and thus the product was neither shipped nor delivered since the order was cancelled prior to the same. It is stated that a full refund was issued to the Complainant without admitting any liabilities being merely operating an e-commerce marketplace and the sale transaction was executed between the Seller and the Complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 did not turn up despite due service, hence vide order dated 10.05.2023 it was proceeded against exparte.
4. Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
5. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that despite of confirmed order after receiving the full/final desired amount for the purpose of the purchase of the TV in question,  the OPs illegally and arbitrarily cancelled the confirmed order of the  complainant and refunded  the amount paid by  him.  Though the amount  has been refunded by the OPs still  the complainant through the present complaint highlighted  the deficiency in service and  indulgence in unfair trade practice by the OPs for cancellation of confirmed order and prayed for  compensation and cost of litigation and difference amount between the  original price and discounted price.
8. The stand taken by the OP No.1 is that immediately after placing the order in question the same was cancelled  due to some error and pertinently the amount paid by the complainant after confirmation of order has already been refunded  to the complainant and as such there is no deficiency on the part of the OPs. It has further been stated that it being  merely an commercial market place cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service  as the whole transaction was executed between  the seller and the complainant.
9. After going through the evidence on record it is abundantly clear from Annexure C-1 dated 22.1.2021 that  the  order was confirmed at 9:26 a.m. and prepared for shipment  and accordingly the complainant  paid an amount of Rs.1,17,999/- to the OPs.  Annexure C-2 the chat of the complainant with the Amazon  customer care service reveals that the complainant requested it to give proper details of the  seller of the product in question and accordingly  contact details of the seller was provided by OP No.1 to the complainant.
10. Undoubtedly, the amount paid by the complainant has already been refunded to him but  in our opinion  the Ops advertised and   offered heavy discount on the product in question as per availability of the product and only on the basis of the said advertisement and offer of OPs the complainant placed the order which was duly confirmed by the Ops. However, later on the Ops cancelled the order. Had  the order been cancelled before receipt of confirmation,  the matter would have considered otherwise but the act of OPs  by advertising  and offering  the LG TV  in question at heavy discounted  price actively influenced the complainant’s decision to purchase the product and thereafter accepting  the payment and subsequently unilaterally  cancelling the order without justification demonstrates  their direct involvement  in the transaction’s conclusion and termination thereafter.
11. The Govt. of India is pleased to enact Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause (zg) of subsection (1) of section 101 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (35 of 2019). The definition e-Commerce entity under the Rule 3 (1) (b) is defined as under:-

“…“e-commerce entity” means any person who owns, operates or manages digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce, but does not include a seller offering his goods or services for sale on a marketplace e-commerce entity…”

 

 

Further, Rule (6) sub  Rule  (1)   provides as under:-

 

“……Duties of sellers on marketplace. – (1) No seller offering goods or services through a marketplace e-commerce entity shall adopt any unfair trade practice whether in the course of the offer on the e-commerce entity’s platform or otherwise.

    

12.      Moreover, the OP No. 1 has acted in contravention of Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020, specially Rule 5(3). This rule unequivocally requires every marketplace e-commerce entity to provide clear and accessible information about the sellers on its platform. This includes details such as the seller's business name, geographic address, customer care number, ratings or feedback, and other essential information to enable consumers to make informed decisions at the pre-purchase stage. Moreover, the provision extends to post-purchase scenarios where, upon a written request from a consumer, the e-commerce entity is obliged to provide comprehensive information about the seller from whom the purchase was made. This information encompasses the principal geographic address of the seller's headquarters and branches, website details, email address, and other pertinent communication details necessary for effective dispute resolution. Rule (3) reads as under:

“Every marketplace e-commerce entity shall provide the following information in a clear and accessible manner, displayed prominently to its users at the appropriate place on its platform: (a) details about the sellers offering goods and services, including the name of their business, whether registered or not, their geographic address,customer care number, any rating or other aggregated feedback about such seller, and any other information necessary for enabling consumers to make informed decisions at the prepurchase stage: Provided that a marketplace e-commerce entity shall, on a request in writing made by a consumer after the purchase of any goods or services on its platform by such consumer, provide him with information regarding the seller from which such consumer has made such purchase, including the principal geographic address of its headquarters and all branches, name and details of its website, its email address and any other information necessary for communication with the seller for effective dispute resolution;”

 

 

 

13. A bare perusal of above mentioned Rules provide that  no seller offering goods or services through a marketplace e-commerce entity shall adopt any unfair trade practice whether in the course of the offer on the e-commerce entity’s platform or otherwise.
14.  We feel that offering expensive product at a heavily discounted price without any intention to honour the sale at that price is simply a classic case of false and misleading advertising. We opine that firstly alluring the complainant with attractive discount and then cancelling the order after accepting  the payment amounts to unfair trade practice on  the part of the OPs. Moreover, such bait and switch tactics  where consumer are baited with false promises and then switched to an alternative or no deal at all are deceptive and violates consumers rights.  Thus the Ops are indulged in false  advertisement to lure the customers under false pretexts and thereby harassing the public at large and as such there is clear cut deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice.
15. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. OPs are directed as under:-

 

1. to pay Rs.15000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
2. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.
3. to deposit Rs.25,000/- in the consumer legal aid account  head being maintained by the Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T., Chandigarh.

 

16.      This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii)&(iii) above.
17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
18.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			sd/-  [Surjeet Kaur] PRESIDING Member   Sd/-
20/3/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member