Delhi

North East

CC/149/2018

Mr. Naveen Porwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

06 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 149/18

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Naveen Porwal S/o G.N Porwal R/o H.No. X-10c/42 Street No. 10, Brahampuri Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	MSAB Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.(ASSPL) Brigade Gateway, 8th Floor, 26/1 Dr. RajKumar Road, Malleshwaram west, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India.   SBI Cards SBI Card, Correspondence Department DLF Infinity Towers, Tower C, 10-12 Floor, Block 2, Building No.3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana, India.	Opposite Party No.1             Opposite Party No.2

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:     DATE OF ORDER:

20.07.18 07.12.22 06.04.23

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1.  The case of the Complainant is that he has placed an order for phone Redmi 5 16 GB vide order no. 407-4401295-36548369 from one of his account registered with amazon with email on 20.03.18. The Complainant stated that he was charged twice for this order on SBI visa card ending with 7778 of Rs. 7,622/- and Rs. 7,572.40/-. On 28.04.18 Complainant contacted amazon and mentioned that he was not delivered any product and charged a sum of Rs. 7,572.40/-. The amazon denied to refund the money and asked to file the dispute with card issuing bank. The Complainant filed complaint with SBI cards and SBI cards rejected the claim of Complainant and mentioned that the transaction was valid and verified through OTP without investigating the matter with amazon. The Complainant stated that he sent a letter to grievance cell of bank on 09.08.18 via speed post but no reply was received by Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 7,572.40/- as the extra amount charged by the Opposite Party and Rs. 30,000/- for mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 4,000/- towards litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party No.1

2. The Opposite Party No.1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party No.1 that the claim arising out of the present complaint is with regard to an order place on the Website of Opposite Party No.1 for a Redmi 5 Gold, 16 GB mobile phone on 20.03.18 bearing order no. 407-4401295-3648369 for a total amount of Rs. 7,999/-. However, the Complainant alleges that he has been charged twice, once for INR 7622/-(the total amount payable towards the product ordered minus the amazon pay amount of INR 375.50) and second for INR 7572.40 towards the same product. The Complainant then requested for a refund of the excess amount and got in touch with Opposite Party No.1 regarding his grievance. Once the customer approached the Opposite Party No.1, the Customer Support team of Opposite Party No.1 immediately looked into the matter and checked the records of the payment team and confirmed it to the customer that the amount of INR 7572.40 was not received/credited in favour of Opposite Party No.1 and advised the Complainant to make an inquiry with the concerned bank and dispute the alleged second transaction of INR 7572.40.
3. Further, the grievances of the Complainant are limited to the alleged double charging of the amount towards the said product and it is only the bank/ Opposite Party No.2 who can explain the reason for such double charging and Opposite Party No.1 has no role to play other than check its record and confirm it to the customer, which the Opposite Party No.1 has duly assisted its customer to the best possible manner in the present case. The Opposite Party No.1 has been unnecessarily and wrongly arrayed as a party No.1 in the array of parties. The complaint is bad for misjoinder of parties and the Opposite Party No.1 has unnecessarily and wrongly been arrayed as a party to there without any cause of action against them.
4. The Complainant has nowhere in his complaint alleged any wrong/unfair trade practice or intentional harm caused at the hands of Opposite Party No.1.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

5. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by Opposite Party No.2 that the Complainant has agitated issues which have essentially occurred because allegedly during the many purchases made by the Complainant from Amazon on 20^th March 2018, he was charged twice for Rs. 7,622/- and Rs. 7,572.40/-, allegedly for the same product. It is not understandable how come different charges can be levied for same product. Apparently, the Complainant on said date had ordered several products, out of which for one of the transaction i.e. the alleged transaction he has not received the product. Hence, in view of said facts, the Complainant cannot demand reversal of the purchase amount for non-delivery of purchased product from Opposite Party No.2, which could happen only when Opposite Party No.1 admits that despite placing of order, receipt of money it has failed to get the product delivered to the Complainant and it refunds the amount to Complainant through Opposite Party No.2.
6. It is further submitted that the Complainant has alleged that no product was delivered for an amount of Rs. 7,572.40/-. The Complainant has alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 has wrongly charged and despite complaint not reversed the disputed amount of Rs. 7,572.40/- which was allegedly made towards purchase of his phone Redmi 5 16 GB with order no. 407-4401295-3648369 from one of his accounts registered with Amazon on 20^th March, 2018, using his SBI Card bearing no. 4726-4268-5925-7778 issued by the Opposite Party No.2. It is pertinent to submit that the Complainant has not paid the said disputed amount to the Opposite Party No.2 and therefore instead of demanding reversal of same is demanding payment of same, which prayer cannot be entertained against Opposite Party No.2.
7. It is submitted that Opposite Party No.2 received a complaint from the Complainant and taking due cognizance of the same the Opposite Party No.2 requested the Complainant to file a dispute form detailing a description of services/goods, expected date of delivery and merchant contact proof, vide its email communication dated 5^th April, 2018 so as to initiate an enquiry/investigation into the alleged disputed transaction. That the Complainant submitted the dispute form for alleged transaction.
8. It is submitted that valid merchant contact proof was not received by the Opposite Party No.2 within the stipulated time frame due to which chargeback could not be raised by the Opposite Party. Nonetheless the Opposite Party No.2 after verifying the available documents and details, found that no chargeback recourse could be availed. It is submitted that thereafter the Complainant case was closed and the Complainant was duly informed about the same.
9. It is most respectfully submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 had duly investigated the complaint of the Complainant, and it was revealed that all transactions have been performed in a secured manner as the same were validated by the Complainant’s card CVV and dynamic OTP over internet/IVR. Hence, the allegations levelled against the Opposite Party No.2 are false and baseless and the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

Rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties

10. The Complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statements of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Parties and has reiterated the assertions made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

11. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

12. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.1 has filed affidavit of Ms. Swati Aggarwal, AR of Opposite Party No.1, and Opposite Party No.2 has filed affidavit of Sh. Punit Babbar, AR of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the averments made in the written statements of respective Opposite Parties have been supported.

Arguments and Conclusion

13. We have heard the Complainant and Ld. Counsels for the Opposite Parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1. The case of the Complainant is that he has placed an order for  phone with Opposite Party No.1 and he charged twice for this order on SBI visa card issued by Opposite Party No.2 of Rs. 7,622/- and Rs. 7,572.40/-. As per Complainant he contacted Opposite Party No.1 and raise the issue regarding amount charge of Rs. 7,572.40/- and request for refund of the money since no product was delivered against the charged sum. Opposite Party No.1 refused to refund the money and directed the Complainant to file the dispute with Opposite Party No.2 the card issuing bank. Opposite Party No.2 rejected the claim of the Complainant and mentioned that transaction was valid and verify through OTP. It is admitted by the Opposite Party No.1 that Complainant placed an order for phone of double amount of Rs. 7,999/- and it was also admitted that issue was raised with them regarding he was charged twice for the same product. As per Opposite Party No.1 they have checked their record and confirmed that the amount of Rs. 7,572.40/- was not received/credited in the favour of Opposite Party No.1. So they advised the Complainant to make an inquiry with the concerned bank about the alleged transaction of Rs. 7,572.40/- since only Opposite Party No.2 can explain the reason of double charging and Opposite Party No.1 has no role to play other than check their record. As per Opposite Party No.2 they have investigated the complaint of the Complainant and it was found that all transactions have been performed in secure manner and the same was validated by the Complainant’s card CVV and dynamic OTP over internet/IVR.
14. There is no dispute about Complainant was charged twice for the same order. As per statement of the bank account of the Opposite Party No.2 money was deducted twice by the Opposite Party No.2 and credit the amount to Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 failed to produce any document/evidence of non-receipt of Rs. 7,572.40/- which was deducted by the Opposite Party No.2 and credited into the account of the Opposite Party No.1.
15.  In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 7,572.40/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party No.1 is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the Complainant on account of mental harassment and litigation expenses with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
16. Order announced on 06.04.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President