Delhi

North East

CC/146/2021

Smt. Radha Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon.In - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jul 2024

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. 146/21

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Smt. Radha Sharma W/o Sh. Ram Niwas D/o Sh. Om Prakash R/o H.No. 3043, Ram Nagar, Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi 110032   Also at:- C 18, Sawan Park, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-110052		Complainant
		Versus
	1.           2.           3.	Amazon.in Through its Director B 2/62, Tower 3-, 5th Floor, Noida Sector 62 block B industrial Area Noida 201309 UP   Appario Retail Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director Regd. Office at: S 405 (LGF) Greater Kailash II, New Delhi-110048   Unknown Person Servant/Agent/ Delivery person of Opposite Party No.1		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		12.10.21 06.06.24 01.07.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

 

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party alleging deficiency in services.

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. As per the complaint, the case of the Complainant is that on 14.10.19 daughter of Complainant booked a laptop of Lenovo I 3,7^th Generation, 15.6 inches FHD (4GB/1TB/Window 10 Office 2019/Platinum Grey /2.2 KG) 81DC01A3 IN for a sum of Rs. 44,489/- with Opposite Party No.1 bearing order no. #404-400101-8367545 and was expected to be delivered on 15.10.19. The payment was made through her credit card. It is stated that on 15.10.19Complainant received a call on her mobile phone and asked the address of Complainant for delivery of laptop. Thereafter, a person/Opposite Party No.3 reachedComplainant’shouse and gave her a box containing ordered laptop and when Complainant asked to open the box then Opposite Party No.3 only got open the upper box and refused to get the internal box open and  fled away from spot. When Complainant opened the box, she found that the box contains old broken laptop, then Complainant immediately lodged complaint on customer care of Opposite Party No.1 and they told that matter is under investigation with carrier and consume lot of time and are not able to resolve the issue of Complainant.  The Complainant had also lodged written complaint to Police Station Bharat Nagar, Delhi vide DD no. 15-D dated 27.10.19 but no action has been taken.  The Complainant had also sent legal notice to Opposite Party No.1 and 2 dated 04.03.20 via speed post but all in vain. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 to immediately deliver fresh, original and in workingcondition laptop in question to the Complainant and Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment. He also prayed for Rs. 25,000/- for litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.1 despite service of Notice. Therefore Opposite Party No.1 was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 25.07.22

Case of the Opposite Party No. 2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement. The Opposite Party No.2 has made preliminary submissions that Opposite Party    No.2 carries on the business of reselling different products and is registered on website as online seller governed by the terms of two types of agreement with Amazon qua the products sold on the website one is Amazon Business Solution agreement (BSA) and other is fulfilment by Amazon (FBA). It is submitted that the subject product is an FBA product and under FBA, Amazon is responsible for storage,packaging, dispatch and customer support. While admitting the order placed by the Complainant on the website for subject laptop, it is submitted that Opposite Party No.2 is reseller of the product which falls within the ambit of FBA. It is further submitted thatall communication as alleged took place between Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant and no cause of action arose between Opposite Party No.2 and the Complainant , hence, complaint be dismissed against Opposite Party No.2.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

4. The Complainant filedrejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

6. Despite giving several opportunities to Opposite Party No.2 to file evidence, Opposite Party No.2 failed to file the evidence. Therefore, the evidence of Opposite Party No.2 was closed vide order dated 13.03.23.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2.
8. It is the case of the Complainant that the daughter of the Complainant booked the subject laptop with Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, a person/Opposite Party No.3 reached Complainant’s house and gave her a box containing ordered laptop. It is alleged that whenComplainant asked to open the box then Opposite Party No.3 only got open the upper box and refused to get the internal box open and fled away from spot. When Complainant opened the box, she allegedly found that the box contains old broken laptop. Complainant immediately lodged complaint on customer care of Opposite Party No.1 and he was told thatmatter is under investigation with carrier and consumes lot of time and they are not able to resolve the issue of Complainant.  The Complainant had also lodged written complaint to Police Station Bharat Nagar, Delhivide DD no. 15-D dated 27.10.19 but no action has been taken.  This shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party No.1 to 3 to immediately deliver fresh, original and in working condition laptop in question to the Complainantas well as compensation.
9. The Opposite Party No.1 has not contested the case while Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that Opposite Party No.2 is reseller of the product which falls within the ambit of FBA. Under FBA, Amazon is responsible for storage, packaging, dispatch and customer support. It is further submitted that all communication as alleged took place between Opposite Party No.1 and the Complainant and no cause of action arose between Opposite Party No.2 and the Complainant , hence, complaint be dismissed against Opposite Party No.2.
10. The perusal of the material on record reveals that theComplainant has filed incomplete copy of order taken from site of Opposite Party No.1 i.e. Amazon.in which only shows that a payment of Rs. 44,489/- was made to Opposite Party  No.1. It showsneither the day of purchase nor the product purchased. The Complainant has neither filed any invoice of the subject laptop nor the complaint allegedly lodged with the customer care of Opposite Party No.1 regarding delivery of  broken laptop.
11. The contention of the Complainant is that the defect in the product was intimated to the Opposite Party and the complaint were lodged, however, the said contention has not been supported by any documentary proof.The Complainant has only filed a copy of message from customer service sent to the Complainant in response to her complaint. The perusal of those messages reveals that Opposite Party No.1 acknowledged that Complainant had received a different product while the contention of the Complainant is regarding‘the broken product’. This discrepancy has not been explained by the Complainant anywhere. Moreover, the Complainant has not filed any evidence whatsoever in support of his contention that the laptop received by her was a broken one as no photograph of the broken product or the box received has been filed. The Complainant has also filed a copy of written complaint to Police Station Bharat Nagar, Delhi vide DD no. 15-D dated 27.10.19 and as per her own admission no action was taken, hence same cannot be considered by this commission.
12. Since the Complainant has not filed any other proof whatsoever in support of her claim that the laptop in question was defective/ broken and despite her complaint asking Opposite Party No.1 to replace the same, Opposite Party No.1  failed resolve the issue making Opposite Party  liable to be deficient in services.
13. In this context, we would like to place reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SGS India Ltd v. Dolphin International Ltd. (Oct 6, 2021) wherein it is upheld that “ the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the Complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the Complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.” The Division Bench in above cited case relied on its judgment reported in Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. (2000 1 SCC66) wherein it held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.
14. In view of above, we find that the contentions raised by the Complainant in the complaint have not been substantiated /corroborated by sufficient documentary evidence and the onus being on the Complainant to prove her case, the Complainant has miserably failed to discharge the onus.
15. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices against the Opposite Parties and as such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
16. Order announced on 01.07.24.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)         Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President