Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/47

Gurmeet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Amazon - Opp.Party(s)

compl in person

25 Oct 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:47 dated 21.01.2019.                                                Date of decision: 25.10.2021. 

Gurmeet Singh aged 35 years S/o. Balbir Singh, R/o. Village Kakar, P.O. Tihara, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                            ..…Complainant

                                      Versus

1. Amazon.in Company having its authorized dealer Cloudtail India Private Limited Khasra No.58//12/2/2/2min, 19min, 20/2, 21/1, 21/2, 21/3, 57/23/2, 24, 25, 63//3/1/1. 4/1, 5/1, Bilaspur, adjoining Ansal, Poineer City, Gurgaon, Haryana-122413.

2. BPL Company, having its branch office Basement Dhyan Singh Complex, 37-B, Bus Stand Road, Near Bus Stand, Model Gram, Ludhiana.

3. BPL Company, having its corporate office BPL Techno Vision Pvt. Ltd., 17^th KM, Old Madras Road, Avalahalli, Bangalore-560 049, Karnataka, India.                                                                                          …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         None.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Sudhir Gakhar, Advocate.

For OP2                         :         Sh. Bhag Singh, Advocate.

For OP3                         ;         Exparte.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one BPL 6.5 Kg fully automatic Front loading washing machine from the OPs for Rs.17,690/- online vide order  No.404-0079842-1848317 dated 14.02.2018. The amount of Rs.17,690/- was paid through credit card. The washing machine was delivered after 2 days. However, when the complainant tried to use the washing machine, it did not start. The complainant notice that the cover part of the machine had been damaged. The complainant lodged a complaint with OP company through email on 21.02.2018  who replied that the damaged part would be dispatched within 10-15 days. However, the damaged part was not received by the complainant 10-15 days. The complainant again contacted OPs, upon which they told the complainant that their technician would visit the house of the complainant for the necessary repairs/replacement of the part. However, no technician visited the house of the complainant for changing the damaged part. Thereafter, the complainant again sent an email to the OP company on 14.08.2018, but till October 2018, no technician came to change the damaged part of the machine. On 30.11.2018, a technician came to the house of the complainant and checked the washing machine and told the complainant that the damaged part would be changed shortly. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OP company many times but they have been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.17,690/- along with interest @18% per annum and OPs be also made to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, OP3 did not come present and was proceeded against exparte. The complaint, has however, been resisted by OP1 and OP2.

3.                In the written statement filed on behalf of OP1, it has been pleaded that OP1 is only an intermediary as per  the Information Technology Act, 2000. The seller of the product is only responsible and OP1 is not involved in the sale transaction which is between the user and seller and the role of OP1 is only that of a facilitator and therefore, OP1 has been wrongly impleaded as party whereas the contract of sale on the website is strictly a bipartite contract between the complainant and OP2. The other averments made in the complaint are denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.  

4.                In a separate written statement filed on behalf of OP2, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable against OP2 nor it has any concern with the damaged part of the washing machine. OP2 only does sale and service of medical equipments and has no concern with the washing machine in question. On merits, it has been pleaded that the complainant has not purchased the washing machine from OP2 nor has OP2 any concern with the invoice. OP2 has no concern with the washing machine nor OP2 ever sent any technician to the house of the complainant to check the washing machine. The address of OP2 mentioned in the complaint is not the address of branch of BPL. In fact, M/s. Electropac Service Centre, Ludhiana is the only an authorized dealer of BPL medical equipments. The address of OP3 given in the complaint is a separate division of BPL company which deals with washing machine whereas OP2 deals with sale and service of medical equipment and OP2 is known as BPL Medical Technologies Private Limited. OP2 has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.                The complainant in this case is not appearing since 20.10.2020, but we hereby proceed to decide the complaint on merits.

6.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit Ex. CA with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C7 and closed the evidence. Ex. C1 is photocopy copy of ADHAR card of the complainant, Ex. C2 is the copy of the invoice, Ex. C3 is billing and shipping details of the seller and the purchaser, Ex. C4 to Ex. C7 are emails exchanged with

8.                So far as OP1 is concerned, washing machine in question has not been sold by it. OP1 is only an intermediary. As per the invoice Ex. C2, the complainant purchased washing machine from Cloudtail India Private Limited, Bilaspur, Adjoining Ansal Pioneer City, Gurgaon, Haryana which has not been made a party in this case. Since the seller i.e. Cloudtail has not been impleaded as party, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is pertinent to mention here that though in the invoice Ex. C2, the description of the product has been given as BPL 6.5 kg fully automatic front loading washing machine, but the name of the manufacturer has not been given in Ex. C3, which was tagged with the invoice Ex. C2.

9.                It has been specifically claimed on behalf of OP2 that it has nothing to do with the sale of BPL washing machine nor it is the authorized service centre of BPL company for the products like washing machine. It has been specifically claimed in the written statement filed on behalf of OP2 that Op2 never sent any mechanic to repair or replace the damaged part of the machine. As OP2 does the sale and service of medical equipments like, X-ray machine, ECG, Monitor, Ultrasound machine  and it has no concern with the washing machine. It has also been claimed that the complainant never visited the office of OP2 and the complainant has impleaded OP2 on the basis of some information collected from internet. The address of OP2 mentioned in the complaint is not the branch address of BPL company and only M/s. Electropac Service Centre, Ludhiana is the authorized dealer of BPL medical equipments and OP3 is a separate division of BPL company which deals with washing machine, whereas OP2 deals in sale and service of medical equipment only. In this regard, OP2 has placed on record certificate issued by BPL Medical Technologies Private Limited stating that M/s. Electropac Service Centre, Ludhiana is the authorized dealer of M/s. BPL Medical Technologies Private Limited. In these circumstances, in our considered view, the complaint as against OP2 is also not maintainable.

10.              OP3, the manufacturer of the washing machine is exparte in this case. As started in the written statement filed on behalf of OP2, OP3 is the manufacturer of BPL washing machine. It has chosen not to contest the case and has been proceeded against exparte. It is evident from emails Ex. C4 to Ex. C7 exchanged with OP3 being manufacturer of washing machine whereby OP3 promised to repair the same which was delivered in damaged condition to the complainant. In email Ex. C6, it is mentioned that part has been dispatched from Bangalore factory and it would reach the service location team within 10-15 days. Since washing machine was never repaired, in the given circumstances, in our considered view, it would be just and appropriate if OP3 is directed to repair the washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order and OP3 be further made to pay a composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that OP3 shall repair the washing machine to the satisfaction of the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order. OP3 shall further pay a composite compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The complaint as against OP1 and OP2 is, however, stands dismissed. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:25.10.2021.

Gobind Ram.