Date of Filing: 27-10-2018

Date of Order: 06-11-2020

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – I, HYDERABAD

P r e s e n t­

   HON’BLE  Shri  P.VIJENDER, B.Sc. L.L.B., PRESIDENT

HON’BLE Shri  K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B.,   MEMBER

On this the Friday  the 6^th day, of November, 2020

C.C.No. 418 /2018

Between      

 Purnachander S/o Madhu,

Aged about 31 years, Occ: Pvt employee,

R/o: Flat No. 101, Raghu Building,

H.No. 8-3-225/A/50/57, Yadhagiri Nagar,

Yousufguda, Hyderabad – 500045

                                                                                                                ….Complainant

And

Amazon.in online shopping

 authorization signatory

# Plot No.9, 9^th & 10^th Floor,

IT Raheja Mindspace, Hitech City,

Hyderabad – 500081                                            ….Opposite Party

Counsel for the Complainant                             : M.A. Madhumathi

Counsel for the Opposite Party                         : Thomas George &    
                                                                     Associates

O R D E R

(By Shri K.RAM MOHAN, B.Sc. M.A L.L.B.,  MEMBER on behalf of the bench)

               The above complaint has been instituted  U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 for deficiency in service  and adoption  of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party in the services rendered as such praying the District Forum  to direct the opposite parties  to return Rs. 6,900/- paid for the cost  of home town Three seater sofa to the complainant along with interest @18% p.a with effect from 02-10-2017 till realization , to award compensation for Rs. 50,000/- for pain, suffering and mental agony, Rs. 10,000/- for costs of the litigation and to grant such other relief or reliefs as it deems fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity.

2.            The complainant  placed an  Online Order (No. 403-2136629-5159564 dated 08-10-2017 ) through the website/online market place being maintained by the opposite party for purchasing hometown Three seater sofas by making online payment  of Rs. 6,900/-. The same was confirmed and informed by the opposite party and subsequently it is stated to have been informed that the product was shipped and the same would be delivered to the complainant. But later the opposite party informed the complainant that due to some technical issues and lack of availability of the product,  the same could not be sent. The request of the complainant made to the opposite party for return of the paid amount together with interest as demanded was stated to have not been conceded nor was the ordered product delivered thereby causing loss and inconvenience  to the complainant.

               The complainant states that the said act of the opposite party amounts to not only  deficiency in service but also adoption of unfair trade practice on its part. Having no other alternative , the complainant states that the above complaint  has been filed praying the District Forum to grant reliefs as stated supra.

3.            The opposite party resisted the complaint by filing its written version stating that it is neither manufacturer nor product seller of the ordered product rather it is only a facilitator as such facilitates the product sellers to engage themselves in publishing their advertisements  and to sell their products   through its website. The amount for the above ordered  product of Rs. 6,900/- has been paid by way of online transaction by the complainant to the product seller only but not to it as such states that when it is not a seller of the product,  the question of arising deficiency in service  and adoption of unfair trade practice  on its part does not arise . And also states that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and it. Under the circumstances the opposite party pleads  that it is not liable in any way to return  the said paid price of Rs. 6,900/- nor payment of any compensation or costs to the complainant  as such it prays  the Distirct Forum to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.    

4.            In the enquiry, the complainant got filed evidence affidavit reiterating the material facts of the complaint and to support the same got marked his filed documents as Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 while the opposite party got filed evidence affidavit to support its  pleadings and got marked its documents as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. Written arguments  have been got filed by both the parties and oral arguments have been got submitted on their behalf.

5.            Heard the counsel for both the parties, perused material brought on record and for arrival of just conclusion the following  points have emerged for consideration:

1. Whether the complainant could make out a case of alleged deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party .?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for .?
3. To what extent.?

5.1          On consideration of the pleaded facts and adduced  evidence by the both parties,  it is very clear that the complainant paid the price for the ordered product through online only to the product seller and not to the opposite party. The opposite party has been maintaining website/online market place for the product seller to enable it to publish its advertisement and sell its products through its said website/market place. In view of this, it is clear that the opposite party is a facilitator, not a product seller nor the manufacturer of the sold  product. Ex.B3 which is a copy  of terms and conditions  of sale between the seller and  the customer clearly shows that for the transactions held between the parties, the seller is responsible  to the customer. The  dispute relating  to return of paid amount of Rs. 6,900/- to the  opposite party has to be resolved by the  seller of the sold product  to the complainant and not the facilitator, i.e. the opposite party.   The Opposite party pleaded and proved that the seller has already informed  to the complainant that the refund  of amount vide order No. 403-2136629-5159564 is stated to have been initiated by the product seller, which is evidenced  by Ex.B4. Under these circumstances, we hold that the opposite party is not liable in any way to return the paid price for the ordered product  . Thus, this point is answered against the complainant and in favour of the opposite party.  

5.2           In view of our above findings, the complainant has failed to prove his case against the opposite party consequently the opposite party is not in any way liable to the alleged loss caused and consequential relief as claimed by the complainant. Thus, this point is answered against the complainant and in favour of the opposite party.

 5.3         keeping our above discussion in view, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as claimed.     

Point No.2:-

In the result, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

      Dictated to steno, transcribed and typed by him, pronounced by us on this the 06^th day of  November, 2020.

   MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

NIL

Exhibits filed on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex.A1 -  Copy of confirmation order dated 02-10-2017.

Ex.A2 – Copy of Shipping confirmation dated 08-10-2017.

Ex.A3 – Copy of  track package & mails conversation between
             complainant & opposite party.

Exhibits filed on behalf of the Opposite parties:

Ex.B1 – Copy of Board resolution

Ex.B1 –  Copy of Letter of authorization

Ex.B3 – Copy of terms and conditions of sale between  seller and
              customer.

Ex.B4 -Copy of Refund on Order No.403-2136629-5159564, Dated
           20-03-2019.

MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT