Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/747/2017

Yatin Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

In Person

08 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/747/2017
Date of Institution	:	24/10/2017
Date of Decision	:	08/08/2018

 

Yatin Gupta son of Sh. Kamal Gupta, Resident of House No.3059, Blood Donors Society, Sector 50-D, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Limited, Ground Floor, Eros Plaza, Eros Corporate Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi– 110019, through its Manager.

……Opposite Party

 

CORAM :	RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person.
	:	Sh. Inderjit Singh, Counsel for Opposite Party.

Per Surjeet Kaur, member

1.         The facts of the consumer complaint, in brief, are that the Complainant on 31.08.2017 purchased two Intex IT-PB 12.5K 12500 MAH Power Banks (Black-Red),  sold by Cloudtail India Pvt. Limited, through the website of Opposite Party. The said product was delivered on 03.09.2017. After using the product for some time, Complainant realized the poor performance of the product and decided to return the same. However, finding that there was no pick-up service, the Complainant, on the advice of Opposite Party, self-returned the product through DTDC Courier.  It has been alleged that the Opposite Party refused to take the delivery of the product on the ground that it accepts the products only from postal services.  With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party filed its reply pleading that it does not sell or offers to sell any product(s) and neither does advertise or endorse any product or service on its website or anywhere else and it merely provides an online market place where independent third party sellers list their products for sale. The sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the Website. It has been asserted that the Complainant was unambiguously clarified that there was no pick-up service available at Chandigarh and thus he should self-return the product by way of courier and that the expenses of courier shall be paid to him. It has been asserted that if the DTDC informed the Complainant that answering Opposite Party has refused to accept the package, he ought to have contacted the Opposite Party to help him, which he has not done. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         Controverting the allegations contained in the reply and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the replication.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party.
7.         Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party has contended that it is not responsible for the products that are listed on its website by various third party sellers. However, we are not impressed with the contention put forth by the Opposite Party. Since the product was sold at the platform of Opposite Party, we are of the concerted opinion that Opposite Party is solely liable if the product sold by a third party seller on its platform turned to be defective product. Thus, Opposite Party cannot be allowed to take a shield, to evade its liability on the ground that the Sellers themselves are responsible for their respective listings and products on the website. 
8.      Perusal of the e-mails placed on record by the Complainant makes it emphatically clear that it was only on the specific directions of the Opposite Party that the Complainant made arrangement of self-return of the product in question to the Opposite Party after footing the requisite expenses from his own pocket for no fault on his part.
9.         Annexure A-5 which is a Track Shipment Status shows that it was the Opposite Party who refused the delivery of the product. Not only this, through its written statement, the Opposite Party is again directing the Complainant that what happened if the delivery was refused, then he could have contacted it (OP). In our opinion, the Opposite Party being such a big platform is first of all faulty for non-picking up of the defective product from the Complainant when the same was delivered without any hitch at the Complainant’s place and thereafter, it again proved itself being indulged into unfair trade practice by non-receiving the product when sent by the Complainant through DTDC courier services.  It is thus legitimately established beyond all reasonable doubts that the complaint of the Complainant is genuine. The harassment suffered by the Complainant is also writ large. Hence, the act of the Opposite Party for selling a sub-standard product, non-arranging proper pick-up services for collecting the same when the product was found defective and finally, to refuse the delivery of the self-return product, to our mind, amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice, which certainly has caused unprecedented physical and mental harassment to the Complainant and forced him to indulge in the present unnecessary litigation. 
10.         In view of the foregoings, we are of the opinion that the present Complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly partly allowed. Opposite Party is directed as under:-

 

[a]    To refund Rs.929/- to the Complainant being the invoice price of the Power Bank.

[b]    To pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[c]    To pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @12% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [a] and [b] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from cost of litigation as in sub-para [c] 
12.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

		Sd/-	Sd/-
08/08/2018		[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
		Member	President
“Dutt”