Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/251/2022

Sachin - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon through its Legal Manager/Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Neeraj Chaudhary

07 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI

Consumer Complaint No.      251 of 2022

                                                Date of Institution:                 23.11.2022

                                                Date of Decision   :                  07.10.2024

 

Sachin son of Satyanarain, resident of village Balkara, Tehsil and District Charkhi Dadri

                                                                                      ... Complainant.

                                                Versus

1.       Legal Manager/ Manager Amazon, Ambience Tower, 6^th  & 7^th Floor, Ambience Corporate Office Tower-II, Ambience Island, Sector 24 Gurugram-122002.     

2.       Seller Rakesh Kumar, 1^st Floor, 284/C-1, Gali No.8, Nehru Nagar, Central Delhi, New Delhi-110008.

                                                                             ...Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                    HON’BLE MR. DHARAM PAL RAUHILLA, MEMBER

         

Present:      Sh. Neeraj Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Vikram Panwar, Advocate for OP no.1.

                   Opposite party no.2 ex-parte vide order dt.06.03.2023

                           

ORDER:

                       The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant  purchased  a mobile screen display   I-Phone X XR XS 6 6Plus Rs.9199/- vide order no. 406-3435762-4444307 with the condition of replacement if not fit to the mobile phone. It is averred that after receiving the display the same was not fitted in the mobile phone due to some defect in the display which was sent by OP no.2. After that complainant submitted a return request of screen display on dated 01.07.2022 and the screen display was picked up on 02.07.2022 vide picking tracking ID-513323935503. The complainant time and time approached to the OPs and  lodged a complaint and the opposite parties  assured that the said billing amount would be refunded to the complainant in his bank account but till date the opposite parties did not refund the same. Thereafter, the complainant made several oral and written representations to the OPs, but the opposite parties had been avoiding the matter by giving lame excuse and till date the opposite parties did not pay any heed on the grievances of the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice dated 30.08.2022 to the opposite parties but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.9199/- alongwith interest and compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party No.1  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  an order was placed by the complainant for a I-Phone X XR.XS 6 6Plus on 26.06.2022 order ID: 406-3435762-4444307 with an independent third party seller i.e Rakesh Kumar on www.amazon.in. It was submitted that seller had been impleaded as opposite party No.2.  Moreover, the complainant had incorrectly impleaded Amazon Seller Service Pvt. Ltd. (ASSPL)/opposite party No.1 alongwith seller/opposite party No.2 to confuse causes and liabilities between the seller and opposite party No.1.  Against the aforesaid order paced for the product, an invoice dated 26.06.2022 for an amount of Rs.9199/- was issued by an independent third party seller i.e. OP no.2., duly indicating its Goods and Service tax Number i.e. 07IFBPK3680C1ZK and the permanent account No i.e IFBPK3680C against the said order.  It was emphasized that the tax invoice was issued by the seller/opposite party No.2 and not by opposite party No.1 clearly indicating that the transaction of sale was executed by and between the complainant and seller/opposite party No.2.  It was submitted that the payment of consideration towards the product was made by the complainant to the seller/opposite party No.2 in the nodal account set up in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India bearing No. RBI/2009-10/231 dated 24.11.2009.  This notification of the RBI contains directions mandating the opening and operation of nodal accounts, not maintained, or operated by intermediaries, for facilitating collection of payment from customers on behalf of the merchant/seller.  It was clarified that the payment made into the nodal account was not a payment made to opposite party No.1.  Further, it was pertinent to point out that the nodal account was maintained and audited by a bank recognized for such purpose by the RBI and not by the opposite party No.1.  The opposite party No.1 herein was neither the account holder nor the owner of the nodal account and could not transact.  It was submitted that the complainant in the present case had alleged non-refund against the payment made for the purchase of the impugned product. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant approached on 01.07.2022 alleging that the product received by him was facing technical issues and the defective product was picked up on 02.07.2022.   It was further submitted that on the request of the complainant for the return of the order and refund of the amount paid, the pickup of the product was arranged by seller/OP no.2. it was submitted that complainant has contracted OP no.1 customer service team on 10.07.2022 seeking an update for the refund of the amount paid, the OP no.1 internally enquired for the speedy redressal of the complainant’s grievance, it was concluded that refund cannot be processed as the complainant was found to be an abusive customer who is habituated to raising similar issues like defective produced received or wrong product received. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Notice issued to opposite party No.2 on 20.01.2023 not received back either served or unserved.  Tracking details filed in which it had been mentioned that “Item Delivery Confirmed”.  On expiry of mandatory period of 30 days from the notice, Opposite party No2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 06.03.2023.

4.                The learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. CW-1/A and documents Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-8 and closed the evidence on 04.05.2023.

5.                On the other hand, the learned counsel  for the OP no.1 after tendering into evidence affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and documents Ex. OP1/1 and Ex.OP1/3 to Ex.OP1/6  and closed the evidence on 29.08.2023.

6.                OP-2 has not appeared before this Commission despite service of notice and has not filed any written statement, arguments and proceeded exparte vide this Commission order dt.6.3.2023

7.                We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the entire evidence so placed on record by both the parties very carefully and minutely.

                    During the course of arguments, the counsel for complainant reiterated the contents of complaint filed by complainant and the learned counsel of OP no.1 reiterated the contents of written statement filed by OP no.1 and drawn the attention of this Commission towards the documents so placed by the respective parties.

8.                  Admittedly, the complainant had purchased and booked a I-Phone X XR.XS 6 6Plus on 26.06.2022 order ID: 406-3435762-4444307 and the opposite party No.1 delivered the same to the complainant. A tax invoice No. DL-2109077695-2223 dt. 26.06.2022 was raised for the said item viz. Mobilspares in Cell Display for iPhone X XR XS 6 6 Plus 6S 6S Plus 7 7 Plus 8 8 Plus SE 2020 5S (iPhone XR) I B08DLA2V3F(FOLD15) for Rs.9,199/- (Nine Thousand One Hundred Ninety-nine only) mentioning sold by Rakesh Kumar  First Floor,284/C-1, Gali No.8, Nehru Nagar, Central Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi-110008 and billing and shipping address as Sachin Kalher, Seth Chajju Ram Boys Hostel, Agro mall, Rohtak, Haryana, 124001 (Ex.C1 & Ex.COP1/3. The said product was not synchronized and fitted in the mobile phone of the complainant and did not function. Lodging of several complaints to opposite parties personally as well as representations by the complainant ipso facto, it is proved that the display of I-Phone X XR.XS 6 6Plus in question  as detailed in invoice defective piece which was not replace or money refunded by the opposite parties.

9.                In this context, an attention is invited to RBI Directions No. RBI/2009-10/231 DPSS.CO.PD No.1102/02.14.08/ 2009-10 dated 24.11.2009 (Ex.OP1/6) in regard to opening and operation of Accounts and settlement of payments for electronic payment transactions involving intermediaries and also apply on e-commerce activity where intermediary are involved.

Clause 2.1 of the said directions defines intermediaries as under:-

2.1 Intermediaries: Intermediaries would include all entities that collect monies received from customers for payment of merchants using any electronic/online payment mode, for goods and services availed by them and subsequently facilitate the transfer of these monies to the merchants in final settlement of the obligations of the paying customers.

Explanation: for the purpose of these directions all intermediaries who facilitate delivery of goods/services immediately/simultaneously (e.g. Travel tickets/movie tickets etc) on the completion of payment by the customer shall not fall within the definition of the expression “intermediaries”. These transactions which are akin to a Delivery versus payment (DvP) arrangement will continue to be facilitated as per the contracts between the merchants and the intermediaries as hitherto and banks shall satisfy themselves that such intermediaries do not fall within the definition of the “Intermediaries” when they open accounts other than internal accounts.

10.              In the present case invoice was raised through Amazon’s website by Mr. Rakesh Kumar (OP-2) for sale of the mobile spares in cell display for iPhone for Rs.9,199/- and OP-1 played a role of intermediary . This was a transaction for a delivery versus payment arrangement as per contract between the complainant and OP-2. In view of the same, OP-1 is not responsible for sale of the product. OP-1 has given services for delivering   the ordered product and collecting and returning the same to the seller (OP no.2). However, OP-2 is deficient for not replacing the product or to refund the cost of the product to the complainant.

 11.             In the light of above facts and circumstances, the present complaint is allowed and OP no.2 is directed as under:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.9,199/-  with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
2.  To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, agony and harassment.
3. To pay Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.

  Compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which all the awarded amounts mentioned at (i) to (iii) above shall further attract simple interest @9% per annum for the period of default.  Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.