ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party U/S Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, for the deficiency in service in not sending the proper sl. No. of  Laptop corresponding with the correct invoice number of the Laptop. Hence could not activate the laptop and the extended warranty purchased one year and thereby there is deficiency in service on the part OP and for refund Rs.1,599/- being the amount received for extended warranty Rs.50.000/- for damages for causing  monetary loss and waste of valuable time and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; the complainant purchased one Laptop on 11.10.2018 with extended warranted with op Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., “LENEVO IDEAPAD 320, i3 6^th Generation 15.6 inch” by paying Rs.21,999/- the same was delivered by OP within 3 to 4 working days. The invoice sent in respect of the said laptop by the seller was incorrect as the product serial number printed on the invoice, of the product was not matching with the actual product serial number printed on the product.  Hence complainant could not activate One Assist prolong extended one  year warranty, as the laptop invoice was not correct. The same was brought to the notice of customer care of OP to get the correct invoice of the product so as to activate One Assist prolong one year extended warranty. OP took more than 4 months to send the correct invoice in digital format after lot of struggle by the complainant.  Afterwards, when he tried to activate the extended warranty, the same could not be done as the warranty activation was to be done with a validity of 60 days from the date of purchase of the warranty. Whereas, OP took almost 120 days to send the correct invoice. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in providing the correct invoice and hence the complaint.

3.     Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the commission and filed a voluminous version running to 36 pages. The commission ordered to file an abridged version. In the abridged version, OP contended that, it only provides platform on online market place were independent third party suggest the list of their products for sale. They neither sell nor offer any products. The seller themselves are responsible for respective listing and their products on their website. This OP is neither responsible for the product that are listed in the website nor does it interfering and influence any customer in any manner. It has not involved in sales transaction. The condition relating to the customer using its website specifically agreed that the OP is only a facilitator and cannot be a party to or control in any manner any sale transaction on its website. It has denied each and every allegations made against it in the allegation.  It is contended that the complainant is not a consumer. Since it is only a service provider and as the complainant has booked an order for LENEVO IDEAPAD 320, i3 6^th Generation 15.6 inch the same was supplied.  There is no cause of action against it and it has been unnecessarily and wrongly arrayed as party. No claim can be claimed against it. 

4.     It is contended that it is only a e-platform to facilitate the seller and the buyer in this case. The order was placed by the complainant to the 3^rd party seller Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. and independent 3^rd party seller i.e. One Assist Consumer Solutions Pvt. Ltd. The said parties have not been made as parties in this complaint.  It is further contended that the product ordered by the buyer with any independent 3^rd party seller on the e-commerce market place of the OP is packed, sealed, shipped and delivered to the buyer by the independent 3^rd party alone, whereas, OP has no role to play. In this case Apparia Retail Pvt. Ltd has delivered the product.  OP contacted the said Apparia Retails Pvt. Ltd on the complaint made by the complainant regarding the grievances. It was informed that the correct invoice of the product was shared with the complainant and same was duly communicated to the complainant on behalf of third party seller Apparial Retails Pvt. Ltd. and independent third party seller One Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd and the manufacturer of product LENOVA India Pvt. Ltd and OP has nothing to do with it. 

5.     The conditions of use agreement has been mentioned wherein it is clear that the role of the OP for sale transaction entered by and between the independent third party seller and the buyers. Hence OP is not liable or responsible for any action or inaction or any breach of condition representation or warranties by the independent 3^rd party sellers. OP has disclaimed any warranties and representation in respect of quality performance etc. of the products listed or displayed or transacted on its ecommerce platform and further complaint filed is frivolous and the complainant has not come with clean hands and one who seeks justice must come with clean hands. Since elaborate evidence is required to decide this complaint, the matter has to be referred to civil court as the contentions between the parties cannot be decided in a summary procedure adopted by this commission. Even under IT Act OP is not liable for third party content on its market place.  As per the FDI policy, e-commerce market place only provides services to independent 3^rd party sellers by providing an information technology platform on a digital and electronic network. The complainant is under misconception about the role of OP as the seller manufacturer or service provider of the product as well as the warranty plan and therefore for claiming for refund of the amount for which OP is not liable to pay. OP is neither a product seller nor the manufacturer only facilitates for selling the product. Under the circumstances OP cannot be held liable for incorrect information in the invoice detail of the product or for the loss incurred, in respect of the complainant to claim the warranty of the product and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

6.     In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence  and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

7.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO 1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO 2: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

  For the Following.

REASONS

POINT NO 1:-

8.     Upon perusing the entire documents, version and the complaint, it becomes clear that the complainant purchased Lenovo laptop through OP platform. On perusing the entire email correspondences that too in particular letter dated 25.12.2018 it is mentioned as

“In order to help you with this, I have gone through all your previous correspondences and I totally agree with you that this issue has been going on for such a long time however we are yet to provide you with any fruitful resolution.

In order to resolve the issue, I have gone through your account and taken all the necessary steps in order to accomplish the issue. I have raised a service request for you and intimated the relevant team so that your concern gets resolved as soon as possible with utmost priority.

I  assure you that you would not need to contact us again for this particular concern and the issue has again been forwarded to the relevant tean and we shall keep a keen observation so that you receive the correct serial number or the product and your purpose would be served.

I know we are at fault but we solicit one last chance from you, one of our loyal and valuable customers to give you the best service.”

9.     When this is taken into consideration and the fact of complainant purchasing the Laptop through OP platform and OP having corresponded with the third party seller on behalf of the complainant, it becomes clear that OP has taken the responsibility of getting the issue solved.  It took lot of time for the OP to solve the problem and even after providing the correct invoice, and product number the warranty could not be  activated due to the expiry of time limit of 60 days. Hence we are of the opinion that, there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in getting the problem solved in respect of the wrongful mention of the invoice number on the product and on the invoice well in time. Hence we answer POINT NO 1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

POINT NO.2:

10.   In the result, complainant is entitle for refund Rs.1,599/- being the amount paid to purchase one year extended warranty along with interest at 12% per annum on the said amount from 11.10.2018 and also Rs.2,000/- towards damages for suffering mental agony and hardship and Rs,2000/- towards litigations expenses and we answer POINT NO.2 PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and passed the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is partly allowed with cost.
2. The OP i.e. Amazon Seller Services Private Limited represented by its CEO/Managing Director is hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,599/- along with interest at 12% per annum from 11/10/2018 till payment of the entire amount.
3. Further OP is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards damages and Rs.2,000/- cost of litigation expenses to the complainant.
4. The op is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this Commission within 15 days thereafter.
5. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.   

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open commission on this day the 6^th  day of December 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Cash memo

Ex P2: Copy of the  cash memo

Ex P3: Copy of  digital invoice with incorrect product serial No.

Ex P4: Copy of digital invoice with correct product serial number.

Ex. P5 & P6: Copy of the snapshopt of product.

Ex P7:Copy of emails

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Richa Bakshi, Authorized Representative of OP

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Authorization letter.

Ex R2: Board Resolution dated 22.09.2014.

Ex R3: Copy of the Invoice dtd:11.10.2018 issued Appario Retail Private Ltd.,

Ex R4:Copy of the Invoice dtd:11.08.2018 by One Assist Solutions Private Ltd.,

Ex R5: Copy of the RBI directions dtd:24.11.2009

Ex R6: Certified copy of the conditions of use.

Ex R7: Copy of the FDI policy.

MEMBER                        PRESIDENT

RAK*