Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/140/2020

Sonu Machal - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Rajneesh Kaushal

06 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/140/2020
Date of Institution	:	16/03/2020
Date of Decision	:	06/09/2023

 

Sonu Machal aged 32 years son of Sh.Suresh Kumar, R/o H.No.5829, Maloya Colony, Chandigarh-160025.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., having its office at Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055 through its authorized representative.
2. Gadget World, Near Hawk Canteen, Makroniya Sagar, Buzurg-470004 through its authorized representative.
3. Ecom Express Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.911-A, Ground Floor, Chandigarh Road, Industrial Area, Chandigarh 160002 through its authorized representative.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Rajneesh Kaushal, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Chetan Gupta, Advocate for OP No.1.
	:	OP No.2 ex-parte.
	:	Sh.Arjun Kundra, Advocate for OP No.3.

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased one mobile phone from the website of Amazon for an amount of Rs.41,867.13/- on 29.09.2019 (Annexure C-1). The complainant made payment of Rs.41.867.13/- on 29.09.2019 using his SBI credit card. The entire payment was subsequently repaid by the complainant in equal monthly installments of Rs.3641.67/- (C2/22-31). The payment was admittedly made to OP No.1 as reflected in (C1/21). The complainant received the parcel from OP No.1 on 7.10.2019. In response to his order, complainant was delivered a wrong product i.e., 10 Samsung ear-phones instead of mobile phone, for which complainant had made payment. Thereafter, the complainant raised the issue with the OP No.1, but to no avail. The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs (Annexure C-6 & C-7). Hence is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that the product was sold by the seller i.e., Gadget World. It had no role to play in either the sale of the product or delivery of the same. It is stated that the product is packed, shipped sealed and delivered to the complainant by the independent third-party seller i.e., Gadget World alone. It is therefore submitted that the independent third-party seller i.e., Gadget World and Ecom Express Pvt. Ltd. i.e., OP No.3 were collectively responsible for the delivery of the product to the complainant without any involvement of the answering respondent. It is further submitted that the complainant has himself admitted that the delivery was a One Time Password (OTP) delivery wherein he was provided with a secret OTP which he was required to give to the delivery personnel for accepting delivery of the product, if and only if, the package was in good condition. If the complainant had received a wet package, he could have refused to provide the OTP and accept delivery of the product. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1.
3.     Notice of the complaint was sent to OP No.2 seeking its version of the case. However, nobody appeared on behalf of OP No.2 despite following proper procedure, therefore it was proceeded ex-parte on 21.03.2023.
4.     OP No.3 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that as per the terms of the contract between the OP No.3 and the OP No.1 & 2, the responsibility of the answering OP No.3 is to deliver the shipment in the intact condition or “Said to contain basis only” to the said end customers i.e., the OP No.3 is not required to verify the contents, quality or quantity of the item to be delivered or open the package whatsoever. It is further stated that OP No.3 is neither the manufacturer of the product/shipment nor the seller of the shipment and that the OP had no access to identify the products and is not even authorized or liable to open the shipment to verify the contents of the shipments, and has to deliver the product in intact conditions. It was only responsible for the successful delivery of the product/shipment and in the present case, the delivery has been successfully accomplished by it. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.3.
5.     Rejoinder was not intended to be filed on behalf of complainant.
6.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
8.     The sole grouse of the complainant through the present complaint is that despite spending huge amount of Rs.41,867.13/- for buying one mobile phone the OPs sent a wrong product i.e., 10 Samsung ear-phones instead of mobile phone, for which complainant had made payment.
9.     The stand taken by the OP No.1, (Amazon) is that the product was sold by the seller i.e., OP No.2, therefore, it cannot be held liable. Further seller took the services of OP No.3 for the delivery of the product and therefore, no deficiency in service on its part.
10.     Significantly, OP No.2 (the seller) did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to proceed against ex-parte. This act of the OP No.2 draws an adverse inference against it. The non-appearance of the OP No.2 shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.
11.     OP No.3, the party which was involved for the purpose of delivering the product to the complainant through OP No.2 has contested the case stating that it only gives service to deliver the shipment in the intact condition and does not have any access to identify the product in the packet hence, it cannot be held liable.
12.     After going through the evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that the OP No.2, the seller of the product did not come present to contest the complaint. Even the publication by the complainant did not help to procure his presence during the proceedings of the present case. No exercise was proved to be fruitful to serve OP No.2 through whom, the OP No.1 bought the product for the complainant.
13.     Evidently, the payment was made by the complainant to OP No.1 only. Apparently, OP No.2 is listed on the website of OP No.1. We feel it is unethical and unprofessional on the part of OP No.1 to empanel such an entity on its website whereabouts of which are not genuine. Despite knowing identity of the OP No.2, it is out of our understanding that for which reason (OP No.1) did not disclose the identity of OP No.2 throughout the proceedings of the present case. Even OP No.3 who is the only medium to deliver the product to the complainant, did not enquire about the entire episode regarding the statement (Annexure C-4) made by its delivery/courier boy as alleged by the complainant. There is no investigation report/action taken report on record by OP No.1 and OP No.3. Hence, the act of the OP No.1 to hire services through bogus sellers, thereafter non-responding to the complainant and non-disclosing investigation report/action taken report proves deficiency in services on their part and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.
14.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. To refund amount of ₹41,867.13/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint onwards.
2. to pay an amount of ₹5000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

15.     This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty 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) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
16.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
17.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
06/09/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member